Hard Light Productions Forums
General FreeSpace => FreeSpace Discussion => Topic started by: Dan1 on October 03, 2006, 05:58:46 pm
-
Going along with my other thread. What do you guys think that the NTF could have done differently? IT was obvious that Bosch didn't really care about the NTF in the end (cutscenes) but I'm sure some of the other higher ups did.
I think that the NTF should have consolidated their gains personally. I would have tried to capture/destroy the Colossus several times. I am aware of a campaign out there that has a pretty nice take on how the NTF could have come out ahead.
What do you guys think?
-
But if you recall, in the normal campaign they said that the NTF didn't have the firepower to take out the Colly directly, so they went for it's supply convoys. (I forget the name of the mission, but you defend one such convoy just after the Colly's first appearance). I probably would have used that same strategy, except I would have stopped my offensive when the Saths started coming in and let the GTVA eat that, then hit them with my (now semi-rested) forces.
-
I would have tried to capture/destroy the Colossus several times.
Are you bat**** insane?! You'd have to fight across several kilometres of corridors against a crew of 30,000! Not to mention God-knows-how-many automated turrets and other defensive systems it must have. It'd be like invading a small country!
-
It's easy.
Just say "Mission Accomplished" some time after getting yout own troops inside.
-
We're assuming that none of NTF's officers knew how to FRED. :p
But I agree with Dan1's original premise. Perhaps not destroy the Colly, but disabling it somehow. The ship had to spend how many months drydocked to get 40% of it's armor replaced? (...if it hadn't been rushed back into service following the Capella invasion that is).
If Helios bombs can take out a Sathanas's beam guns, they can take out the Colly's. Then have an Orion or something blindside it and do some damage. The GTVA removes it to drydock, the NTF's equivalent of GTVI tracks it, infiltrates it, and blasts its reactor(s) to hell while it's being repaired. If that doesn't take it out, it'll have removed it from service for a very long time while the very expensive repairs are done.
-
Helioses are both extremely rare and expensive. It is unlikely that they'd be about in abundance, and certainly not at the disposal of most NTF commanders. In fact, its likely they were held in armories, and dispensed as needed by GTVA command.
Not to mention that the NTF was a rag-tag fleet of rebels. It didnt have the organization that the GTVA has. There was no GTVI-like entity.
And lastly, the NTF had not even seen the Colossus until it's attack on Enif Station. From that point to the end of the NTF rebellion was hardly a month or two, was it not?
-
Thrown in the towel when the Colossus showed up rather then pulling that bat**** insane run for Gamma Drac.
-
Said "bat**** insane run" got the Iceni into GC, I might point out.
-
Command was gonna let them there anyway >..>
-
As NTF commander, I would have focused less effort on executing starship commanding officers.
-
Indeed, and considering an entire fleet set out and the only ships that got through without being let through were the Grall and... well that's about it, 'Bat**** Insane' seems as good a description of that strategy as any.
Personally, I would have had Bosch assassinated, taken command of the NTF in his stead, ended all that ****ery with ETAK and get down to business securing my territory against GTVA forces. When the Big C showed up, I would have hauled-ass back to the nothern systems and made a big-ass wall around the nodes to GTVA-held systems so any ship that comes through would be pancaked. Just weld a dozen cruisers and corvettes together or something, that should do enough damage for my destroyers to finish off whatever gets through, and perhaps even force Colossus into a retreat.
Then, I send a ship to activate the Knossos and let the GTVA play with the Shivans for a little while, before launching an offensive on their rear flank via Alpha Centauri. Shivans on one side and the NTF on the other with the Colossus in drydock getting the dents from my big-ass node-wall pounded out... the GTVA is in for a whole lot of hurt.
All in all, i'd say just do away with the ETAK wankery and you're golden. The NTF could have had half a chance of winning had it not been just a distraction for Bosch's ulterior motives.
-
Obviously, Bosch didn't care about the rebellion, it was just his smoke screen and his attacks on GTVA space covered his research. But let's just say that I was in command of the NTF and was actually launching a rebellion and not trying to form an alliance with the Shivans.
#1 After gaining a foothold in Regulus, Polaris, and Sirius, consolidate my gains. Force the GTVA to attack me and root me out of those systems. Basically, defend and counterattack. You don't have the resources that the GTVA has, so you have to use them smartly and limit offensive operations.
#2 Once the GTVA Colossus comes online, avoid any direct confrontations with it. The NTF simply wouldn't have the firepower to contend with a ship of that size. Realistically, once it enters the fray, the only hope the NTF has of gaining independence is outlasting the will of the citizens of the GTVA. What I would do would scatter my forces and conduct guerilla actions against targets of opportunity, prioritizing supply convoys for the Colossus.
#3 I wouldn't attack civilian targets. In our position, we don't want civilians hating us. If anything, we want to turn them to our allies. People will always root for the underdog. But they won't if they have a reason to hate you. And blowing up civilian transports and attacking civilian installations wouldn't exactly be the way of winning the hearts and minds of the people in other systems.
-
Said "bat**** insane run" got the Iceni into GC, I might point out.
It was a death ride, though. The NTF probably lost at least a quarter of its ships just reaching Gamma Drac, forcing entry to the system probably cost them another quarter if not more. We know the NTF lost four destroyers simply getting into Gamma Draconis. That's 40,000 lives and very nearly as much combat power as the Colossus, not even counting the cruisers and corvettes lost en route or attempting to force entry. (They lost another four corvettes and at least five cruisers engaged in the same task!)
In retrospect the loyalty of the NTF's ranks and ratings is incredible. They knew, had to know, that the orders they had been given constituted a suicide run. At the very least this would destroy the NTF's ability to defend itself effectively against the GTVA while leaving the Colossus entirely out of the picture. That the rank and file knew what Bosch was up to is suspect at best, so the reasoning behind those orders would have been a total mystery to them. Even had they known, how many of them would have believed in the cause? I think Bosch was nuts for seeking an alliance with the Shivans, and I didn't grow up on stories of the Great War. Bosch was better off not telling them the reasoning. At least he'd have the benefit of the doubt then.
But amazingly, despite their nonsensical nature, despite the fact they would mean the death of the movement and its ideals, despite the fact they would likely kill most of the NTF's pilots, ranks, and ratings, the NTF's captains and crews apparently followed those orders to the letter without hesitation. If for no other reason then that, Bosch deserves the contempt of history. Rarely indeed has the loyalty of the troops been so powerful, and rarer still has it been so abused. The wages of loyal service to the NTF could hardly have been more deplorable.
-
*Snip*
But what have you ordered them do? With the Colossus on the offensive, NTF forces faced certain death if they tried to stay and fight, and it would only be a matter of time until they were hunted down had they chose to simply hide somewhere in their home-systems. The NTF had without a doubt already lost the war. Essentially, they were in the Berlin bunker as the Soviets approached; endgame one way or another.
The nebula represented salvation for the NTF. It was the only place they could run that wasn't under the control of the GTVA, and the interference caused by the nebula itself would have made them nigh-on impossible to locate. At that point the Ravana had just been destroyed and it was assumed that the Shivan force remaining was significantly weakened, which would have undoubtedly filtered back to the NTF and thus made the nebula all the more appealing for a hiding spot. There can be no doubt the run to Gamma Drac looked like suicide, but even one shot in a million sounds like great odds when you're looking down the barrel of a gun.
Granted, the dash was a disaster; with the Colossus in hot persuit and the GTVA blockading every single node along the way, i'm rather surprised as many ships made it to Gamma Drac as they did. But what choice did they have? Had they gone the long way around taking the Vega route to Gamma Drac, they undoubtedly would have had the Colossus and most of the 3rd Fleet waiting for them in Capella by the time they got there. There was simply no other alternative other than surrender, and it's more than likely the GTVA would have had them all imprisoned for the rest of their natural lives or just put to death as traitors. Quite frankly, if you can think of a better plan, i'd like to hear it.
-
@Mefstae
You have a point, if the nebula had been one jump from NTF territory. It takes a hell of a lot zeal to do what the NTF fleet did. While the nebula might have seemed like a nice place to hide out at the time, then what? Suppose you get in to the nebula, and blow some straggler Shivans. You are in a middle of unknown universe. There might be a way out of the nebula. There might be a place to resupply and live somewhere out there. A fleet needs logistics. Once in the nebula, millions of lives would be hanging on the slim hope of finding a habitable planet, or abandoned Shivan agricultural station. Yeah right, slim chance.
Or maybe everyone was brainwashed, North Korea style.
And good luck to the GTVA for imprisoning everyone from at least three starsystems. GTVA would likely just pursue the most famous NTF leaders, like post WW2. There just isn't much they can do with all those NTF grunts without creating a prison planet. Had I been a fighter pilot in the NTF, I would have grabbed as much I can carry and go start my own country somewhere. Or just land on some planet and declare myself a don. Like anyone would find me when I have a whole planet to hide in. Maybe buy a bar in some out of the way mining station.
The reality is that the last action of the NTF was heavily influenced by :v: 's desire to get some big explosions and bombing action, and to let the player do a little genocide amidst all the killing.
-
Your timing is off; the GTVA had actually resumed nebular operations at that point and knew there were more Shivans about (your stay with the 134th preceeds The King's Gambit). They were pressing forwards still but did not have it all their own way. So the nebula is actually even less attractive then facing the Colossus, because you'd have twice the number of folks gunning for you.
Also, since as you have pointed out they were really ****ed either way, did it really matter? Either way, if they fought, they would die. They ought to have surrendered. Further resistance was futile, wasteful. What happened to the NTF was a form of organized murder, instigated by Aken Bosch, and the victims wore NTF uniforms. That so many were willing to die for a cause already lost seems improbable. We didn't hear of a single instance of an NTF ship surrendering, much less observe one. The only other force in history that displayed this kind of behavior was the Imperial Japanese Army, and it took a lot more indoctrination then the NTF had to produce it.
-
We didn't hear of a single instance of an NTF ship surrendering, much less observe one.
Didn't the remaining crew of the Iceni surrender in the nebula? Shortly before it self destructed?
-
The crew of the Trinity seemed very willing to be under GTVA custody...
-
The crew of the Trinity seemed very willing to be under GTVA custody...
They were in a damaged, crippled cruiser deep within Shivan held space and very far from NTF support.... who can blame them?
-
They also had nothing to lose but their lives. But still didn't fight to the death like fanatics propably would. They also were in the exact same situation the entire NTF would later try to get in. And that fleet would likely have similar thoughts about surrender to the GTVA had tey been able to punch trought to the nebula.
-
They also had nothing to lose but their lives. But still didn't fight to the death like fanatics propably would. They also were in the exact same situation the entire NTF would later try to get in. And that fleet would likely have similar thoughts about surrender to the GTVA had tey been able to punch trought to the nebula.
What makes you think they were fanatics? Bosch needed an army of stupid cattle for a diversion - but the hard code Vasudan-killers, i.e. the fanatical xenophobes, would scarcely be the ones to send into a (then) empty system on a secret mission. Bosch had his own GTVA contacts, after all, and i'm pretty sure there'd be officers loyal to him for more reasons than mere hatred of the Vasudans.
-
Umm... :nervous:
I never said they were fanatics. I said they were not fanatics. I don't think there were that many realy fanatics in the NTF. In the same way as there weren't that many true nazis...
-
Umm... :nervous:
I never said they were fanatics. I said they were not fanatics. I don't think there were that many realy fanatics in the NTF. In the same way as there weren't that many true nazis...
I'm not sure what your point was, then. What possible logical reason would they have for not surrendering?
-
What possible logical reason would they have for not surrendering?
None whatsoever.
But had they been crazy zod killing fanatics, they might have viewed GTVA as bad news as the Shivans and thus choose not to surrender.
Oh look. I have managed to derail this tread too. :D
Sorry Dan1.
-
What possible logical reason would they have for not surrendering?
None whatsoever.
But had they been crazy zod killing fanatics, they might have viewed GTVA as bad news as the Shivans and thus choose not to surrender.
Oh look. I have managed to derail this tread too. :D
Sorry Dan1.
I;m sort of lost, now......
ok, a point was made that the NTf would fight to the death rather than surrender & face capture. Rebuttal was the surrender of the Trinity; counterpoint is that the Trinity is rather an exceptional case.
Yes?
-
You also have Admiral Koth's comment about having 10,000 people willing to die for Neo-Terra and his comments about the GTVA being a tyrannical regime.
He's obviously swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker.
So there are members of the NTF in key positions who are fanatics. We've got very little info on the politics of the other members of Bosch's staff who weren't in on his plan but there is a chance that they were fanatics too. we've got too little info to state for certain one way or another.
-
I probably would have used that same strategy, except I would have stopped my offensive when the Saths started coming in and let the GTVA eat that, then hit them with my (now semi-rested) forces.
Exactly.
-
You also have Admiral Koth's comment about having 10,000 people willing to die for Neo-Terra and his comments about the GTVA being a tyrannical regime.
He's obviously swallowed the propoganda hook, line and sinker.
Or the GTVA really is a tyrannical regime but Alpha 1 doesn't realize it because he's an elite pilot. :p
-
Heh, one man's tyrant is another man's saviour, as they say ;)
-
GTVA certainly seems big brotherish to me
-
GTVA certainly seems big brotherish to me
You have to remember, though, the only real interaction we have with GTVA is during times with open war, and we're on the military side of things to boot. I'd imagine that peacetime life for your average Joe back in Beta Aquilae probably isn't too much different from that of a citizen of your average Western democracy today.
Regarding whether or not the NTF was a fanatical movement, the Tech Room's description of the way Bosch started things off certainly suggests that there was a rather desperate element to it. Remember, this is the "Lost Generation;" the inhabitants of the NTF systems didn't feel like they had much to live for until Bosch came along. Combined with anti-Vasudan sentiment, that certainly suggests that fanaticism could easily develop. But I think we don't even have to look that deeply into things to explain the suicide run. All (or at least the vast majority) of those NTF crews were ex-GTVA; they were deserters and insurrectionists to a man. And guess what the penalty for traitors is? Death. When it comes down to it, given the choice between a military firing squad and a slim chance at escape, I know what I'd choose.
-
GTVA certainly seems big brotherish to me
You have to remember, though, the only real interaction we have with GTVA is during times with open war, and we're on the military side of things to boot. I'd imagine that peacetime life for your average Joe back in Beta Aquilae probably isn't too much different from that of a citizen of your average Western democracy today.
Ah, but you can tell a lot about the GTVA from its military. It didn't let the NTF secede.
Compare the NTF and the Confederate States of America. Both wanted to secede from a larger, more centralized government to preserve a certain way of life. Both had a moral flaw (treatment of blacks/Vasudans) that their opponent used as a pretext for war. Both had brilliant military leadership that was eventually beaten by superior technology.
When you come down to it, the main reason the USA/GTVA didn't let the CSA/NTF secede was simply because "secession isn't allowed". But why shouldn't secession be allowed? Isn't the right of self-determination what freedom is all about?
-
FINALLY someone else who sees things like I do
-
Isn't the right of self-determination what freedom is all about?
As I've observed before, we generally regard murder as abrogating your right to self-determine, now and forever. As the NTF conducting murder on a massive scale...(And there the parallel with the CSA falls apart.)
-
As the NTF conducting murder on a massive scale...
What makes you say that? Is the US also conducting murder on a massive scale? Well, yes it is, but it is not called that.
But I view the NTF as freedom fighters. Exept the irrational phobia about Vasudans is a bit creepy.
-
Wellllll...
The first mission in FS2. Just for starters.
-
Oh right. 20 heavy attack fighters assaulting a convoy of fragile freighters escorted by 6-7 (?) damaged fighters?
1. WTF was in those freighters? Sending rhat many fighters to down them, they really must have hated those poor defensless people.. No wonder they lost the war.
2. That many fighters and they didn't have a chance against the freighters. No wonder they lost the war.
-
Civilian refugees were in those freighters.
Besides, as observed, the NTF was explictly anti-Vasudan, and you expect me to believe they didn't take that to the logical conclusion in Deneb?
-
GTVA certainly seems big brotherish to me
You have to remember, though, the only real interaction we have with GTVA is during times with open war, and we're on the military side of things to boot. I'd imagine that peacetime life for your average Joe back in Beta Aquilae probably isn't too much different from that of a citizen of your average Western democracy today.
Ah, but you can tell a lot about the GTVA from its military. It didn't let the NTF secede.
Compare the NTF and the Confederate States of America. Both wanted to secede from a larger, more centralized government to preserve a certain way of life. Both had a moral flaw (treatment of blacks/Vasudans) that their opponent used as a pretext for war. Both had brilliant military leadership that was eventually beaten by superior technology.
When you come down to it, the main reason the USA/GTVA didn't let the CSA/NTF secede was simply because "secession isn't allowed". But why shouldn't secession be allowed? Isn't the right of self-determination what freedom is all about?
Albeit the Nazis claimed that the Germans in the Sudetenland (and Austria, etc) self-determined to be part of Germany as a prextext for annexation, so it cuts both ways. Plus, the NTF rose to power as the result of a military coup, not democratic elections, and any imposed dictatorship can easily cajole and force the population to give it the appearance of support.
-
Regardless of self-determination, I think the NTF had to be stopped. Besides, they were attacking the GTVA in way of attacking the Vasudans and massacring Vasudan civilians, and trying to capture Polaris, which AFIAK was not predominately pre-NTF.
And, as much as I hate bush, his crime is fighting a war that may not be justified. In war civilians die, no matter how hard you try not to. By fighting this *possibly* unjustified war he let civilians be killed, however he's not ordering troops to go in and slaughter innocent civilians just because. Bosch did, though, just like Hitler, or the Japanese military dictatorship of WWII.
-
Bosch did, though, just like Hitler, or the Japanese military dictatorship of WWII.
I know I should stay the hell away from it to keep the thread on track, but i've got to say it:
...and the Allies. Why do people always forget the Allies whenever they march out the old "bad guys killing civilians" thing?
-
If i was Bosch, I would have held off the initial uprising until i had operatives deep in the senate, and GTVA command was properly "subversed" then detonated a tactical nuke or somesuch......... :nod:
-
Bosch did, though, just like Hitler, or the Japanese military dictatorship of WWII.
I know I should stay the hell away from it to keep the thread on track, but i've got to say it:
...and the Allies. Why do people always forget the Allies whenever they march out the old "bad guys killing civilians" thing?
Warfare during WWII is a lot different than warfare today. Yes, the Allies bombed cities, and dropped two nuclear warheads, but they didn't round up civilians, rape them, and shoot them (or gas them) in cold blood. I'm sorry if you're from Germany, Mefustae, but if there ever was any such thing as pure evil, then it was Hitler. His regime, and his military were weapons of this evil. The Allies dropped bombs from afar, and I'd say the British actively targeted civilian population centers during their night raids, but they didn't murder in cold blood. Bad things happen in war, but what Hitler did with the Holocaust is inexcusable.
-
Yes, the Allies bombed cities, and dropped two nuclear warheads, but they didn't round up civilians, rape them, and shoot them (or gas them) in cold blood
Didn't? Or didn't have an order to?
-
Yes, the Allies bombed cities, and dropped two nuclear warheads, but they didn't round up civilians, rape them, and shoot them (or gas them) in cold blood
Didn't? Or didn't have an order to?
You've just lost me.
-
round up civilians, rape them, and shoot them (or gas them) in cold blood.
The krauts weren't the only one's who have done that. And there's lot more evil things than Nazi germany. You have any idea what happened during WWI? During Napoleons wars? During the time Russians and Swedes were fighting over Finland? Or what have people done during the various confligts on American continents, all the way to the vikings and aztecs.
Hitler was ambitious dictator with delusions of grandure. But he was no frigging satan. And ofcourse you can tell me to go ask about that from the people in the camps and gas chambers. I'm not denying that was horrible. I'm just brining some perspective.
-
You've just lost me.
I hope you're not implying allied soldiers never killed or raped anyone.
-
Negative. There are always murderers and rapists in any society, military included. The difference is that the Nazi regime itself were murderers and rapists. The Nazis ordered and carried out the cold-blooded execution of six million, that's million, Jews along with 6 million other innocents, so called undesirables. The allies never did anything like that. They dropped bombs and stuff, but something like the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking is beyond collateral damage. That was pure, calculated malice. I'm sorry if your German, but you have to live with the fact that Germany was ruled over by an evil regime. Not that it was entirely the German people's fault. Hitler manipulated the system to come to power, and used terror tactics to stay in control, but he was evil and all who gladly followed his orders were evil.
-
Godwin's law in action here, eh?
Anyway. Stalin currently holds the record (I think) for amount of murders, voluntary and involuntary manslaughters. During years 1929–1939, different sources estimate about 15-20 million lifes; that is the victims of persecution and victims of famine counted together.
On the other hand, Mao might hold the record for manslaughter by gross negligence. Official sources indicate more than 15 million dead in China during years 1958-61, and other sources estimate the numbers to be between 20 and 43 millions... :nervous:
Hitler's holocaust victims total number is usually estimated to be about 9-11 million, though some sources claim it to be as high as 26 million people.
When the terrible acts of Hitler are compared to terrible actions of other "great leaders", you notice an interesting thing. Hitler lost his war. Stalin won. Mao won. Hitler became a monster, Stalin and Mao remained decorated leaders for decades to come. Only long after their deaths the actual atrocities of theirs were revealed. What makes Hitler's regime more of a special case was the fact that Stalin killed anyone who just might oppose him, and most people obeyed him out of fear; Much the same applies to Mao. Hitler, on the other hand, first gained popularity by giving rabid masses a common enemy, then gathered the most nuts of the nutcases as his personal protection and echelon, and onle THEN began killing anyone who might oppose him (ie. the SA troops), and meanwhile kept killing also the original victims of his power scheme - mainly jewish, but also roma, homosexuals, disabled people and other minorities that his pseudo-philosophy regarded "un-aryan". That's the main difference that causes Hitler to have become the archetype of an evil dictator instead od Stalin or Mao.
By the way, I'd like to remind that the Soviet Red Army was also an Allied army. They were not particularly light-handed to civilian population when they ravaged their way towards Berlin in the end of the war. I recommend reading Anthony Beevor's Berlin:The Downfall 1945. Excellent book IMO.
-
Warfare during WWII is a lot different than warfare today.
No need to talk down to me, I know what the notion of Total War implies.
I'm sorry if you're from Germany, Mefustae, but if there ever was any such thing as pure evil, then it was Hitler.
Why would you assume i'm German? Seriously now, I have to be a member of the losing side to be disgusted by the atrocities committed by the Allied forces? Or that I would be insulted by your naming Hitler as 'evil'?
Where did "evil" enter this arguement, anyway? Aside from the fact that Hitler was merely a man and no more evil than any of us, I don't really see how labelling people as "evil" is at all pertinent to this line of [off topic] arguement. The world isn't black and white, it's grey. The notion of 'good' & 'evil' is a myth, and I suggest you come to terms with that.
The Allies dropped bombs from afar, and I'd say the British actively targeted civilian population centers during their night raids, but they didn't murder in cold blood. Bad things happen in war, but what Hitler did with the Holocaust is inexcusable.
What the hell are you talking about? Aside from the obvious factual errors in your logic regarding the bombing of civilian targets by Allied forces, you're making it sound like i'm actually trying to defend the holocaust! It's just plain insulting, it is.
Negative. There are always murderers and rapists in any society, military included.
Well said.
The difference is that the Nazi regime itself were murderers and rapists.
They had their ulterior motives, but I wouldn't say that the entire regime was made up of "murderers and rapists".
The Nazis ordered and carried out the cold-blooded execution of six million, that's million, Jews along with 6 million other innocents, so called undesirables. The allies never did anything like that.
Of course they didn't, who exactly is saying the Allies are guilty of dedicated genocide?
They dropped bombs and stuff, but something like the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanking is beyond collateral damage.
Nice to see you can just whitewash away one of the primary [western] Allied atrocities with "dropped bombs and stuff". Firebombing cities and immolating hundreds of thousands of German and Japanese civilians is a war-crime, plain and simple. And you'll forgive me for balking at the notion of implying one warcrime is worse than another. I mean, total war is one thing, but even the American brass coordinating the firebombings of Japanese cities admitted what they were doing was a warcrime.
That was pure, calculated malice. I'm sorry if your German, but you have to live with the fact that Germany was ruled over by an evil regime.
Why do you keep implying everyone is German?
Not that it was entirely the German people's fault. Hitler manipulated the system to come to power, and used terror tactics to stay in control...
It depends on your use of the word "manipulated". Hitler came to power by entirely legal means. Granted, there was manipulation behind the scenes to put him into the position as Chancellor, but seizing power after the Reichstag fire under Article 42 [I think, been a good year since I studied this] was entirely legal and within the system.
...but he was evil and all who gladly followed his orders were evil.
Once again, I must point out that Hitler, while a madman to be sure, was no more "evil" than you or I. He was just a man. Furthemore, what do you mean by "those who glady followed his orders were evil"? Are you implying the entire German armed forces at the time were evil? Every one a filthy Nazi? Do you have any idea just how wrong that sounds?
Godwin's law in action here, eh?
I think Godwin's only occurs when the subject is brought up for utterly no reason. This thread was about the actions of a regime centred around racism and genocide, so it's only a logical step from there.
Anyway. Stalin currently holds the record (I think) for amount of murders, voluntary and involuntary manslaughters. During years 1929–1939, different sources estimate about 15-20 million lifes; that is the victims of persecution and victims of famine counted together.
Good point, but I think we're all aware of Soviet atrocities, no-one could possibly be under any allusions to the contrary.
By the way, I'd like to remind that the Soviet Red Army was also an Allied army. They were not particularly light-handed to civilian population when they ravaged their way towards Berlin in the end of the war. I recommend reading Anthony Beevor's Berlin:The Downfall 1945. Excellent book IMO.
Read that a few years back, really good book. Have you read his book on Stalingrad?
-
Alas, no... and actually I'm still in the middle of Berlin, but I can already tell for sure that it IS an excellent piece of reading. It's incredible how fact text can be made interesting to read, even though the suspect is quite grim.
If only all school history books were like that... ;)
By the way, I almost brought forth the Allied bombings of civilian targets, not only in Japan but also in Dresden. Most civilian casualties from bombings in Europe can be counted as unavoidable collateral damage, but Dresden was IMO way off. They completely wiped out the whole old downtown of the city and destroyed more or less about third or even half of the city. And I don't think there was that much military hardware in the center of the town.
Although the Dresden bombing is - along one interpretation - not a "war crime" according to war laws of the day which, by the way were out-dated as they were introduced before the development of aerial warfare brought forth area bombings. However, it was definitely a terrible thing to do, and it can also be interpreted as an atrocity against civilian population, but it wasn't "technically" a war crime. :rolleyes:
Firebombing of Japanese targets was even more of a crappy thing to do... they actually killed more people than the nuclear bombs of H and N combined.
However, war crimes are a matter quite separate from internal discrimination and persecution. Although both are crimes against humanity, there's a subtle but important difference between ordering 100 000 civilians, citizens of own country, to be executed and giving an order leading to death of hundred thousand civilians of other country.
To keep at least nominally on topic, the NTF definitely was guilty of war crimes (attacking civilian targets) and perhaps they did commit such atrocities as mass executions of fis... Vasudans in their systems.
But, to keep things balanced, the GTA (or rather, GTI) did also commit war crimes, including murdering allies and civilians in order to cover some things up, as is demonstrated in the Silent Threat campaign. Yes, I know it contains fan made missions but it was an official expansion of Conflict: Freespace, so it should IMO be considered as canon as such, since :v: obviously approved the things in it.
Also, the GTVI commits infiltration missions which are basically the same thing that SS troops did when they wore Allied uniforms, got close to the Allied force and then opened fire. Such thing is, technically speaking, a war crime, since by abandoning uniform or other recognizable insignia, a soldier turns into an illegal combatant, to use the term... basically, a criminal with armament and training:
Conduct of warfare
Among other issues, the laws of war address declaration of war, acceptance of surrender and the treatment of prisoners of war; the avoidance of atrocities; the prohibition on deliberately attacking civilians; and the prohibition of certain inhumane weapons. It is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certain requirements, among them the wearing of a distinctive uniform or other easily identifiable badge and the carrying of weapons openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy's uniform and fighting in that uniform is forbidden, as is the taking of hostages.
Ever thought that what Snipes and Alpha 1 are doing in the NTF is technically a war crime? :drevil:
So, war crimes are not uncommon in FS universe - or alternatively the BETAC is notably looser on definition of war crime than the UN Charter, Geneva conventions and Hague conventions (current international laws considering warfare amongst other things). I wouldn't count on it, though.
About other crimes against humanity (or... should we say, vasudanity?) we don't really have accurate information, but it certainly wouldn't surprize me to learn that at least the HoL and NTF have done such things, after all they do have real loonies such as Koth and the HoL kamikaze pilots amongst them.
-
I get what you're saying about Mao and Stalin, and I agree. To truthful, though, the only reason the US and Britain were allied with the them is because they happened to be fighting our enemy as well. They were allies of the moment, but enemies in truth. I think the firebombing was a crime, but to be honest, even if they focused only on military targets back then, many civilians would still be dead. It's not like they had precision guided munitions in those days. Then there's the atomic bomb. That's controversial because there is the possibility that the military dictatorship would never have surrendered. Of course, the Emperor and others wanted to surrender before the atom bomb was used, and they were executing plans to enact the surrender, but the possibility remains that if the atom bomb wasn't drop, the emperor and company may not have had the support to push the overthrow of the military oligarchy so that they could carry out the surrender. It's kind of a difficult subject. :rolleyes:
My only point is that there's a difference, in my opinion, in firebombing (so called terror warfare) and rounding up citizens, sending them to gas chambers, or mass executing them. Sure, firebombing kills civilians, but it's kind of a distant affair. Something like the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking is personal. However, you're right in that they're both bad. You're point was that both sides are guilty of commiting atrocities, and you're right. My point was that the Nazis were guilty of something greater, since what they did was not what I call just a war crime, but a crime against humanity because the people they killed they didn't kill in some sort of military operation against the Allies, but against citizens in their own country or in territories they occupied.
Edit: I just want to add that I'm in full agreement with Herra's post. He said it better than I could. Now back to the topic!
-
Slightly off-topic but *shrug* :D
-
I get what you're saying about Mao and Stalin, and I agree. To truthful, though, the only reason the US and Britain were allied with the them is because they happened to be fighting our enemy as well. They were allies of the moment, but enemies in truth. I think the firebombing was a crime, but to be honest, even if they focused only on military targets back then, many civilians would still be dead. It's not like they had precision guided munitions in those days. Then there's the atomic bomb. That's controversial because there is the possibility that the military dictatorship would never have surrendered. Of course, the Emperor and others wanted to surrender before the atom bomb was used, and they were executing plans to enact the surrender, but the possibility remains that if the atom bomb wasn't drop, the emperor and company may not have had the support to push the overthrow of the military oligarchy so that they could carry out the surrender. It's kind of a difficult subject. :rolleyes:
My only point is that there's a difference, in my opinion, in firebombing (so called terror warfare) and rounding up citizens, sending them to gas chambers, or mass executing them. Sure, firebombing kills civilians, but it's kind of a distant affair. Something like the Holocaust or the Rape of Nanking is personal. However, you're right in that they're both bad. You're point was that both sides are guilty of commiting atrocities, and you're right. My point was that the Nazis were guilty of something greater, since what they did was not what I call just a war crime, but a crime against humanity because the people they killed they didn't kill in some sort of military operation against the Allies, but against citizens in their own country or in territories they occupied.
Edit: I just want to add that I'm in full agreement with Herra's post. He said it better than I could. Now back to the topic!
You should read about the alternative to the Atomic Bombing of Japan...Operation Downfall, the amphibious invasion of Japan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall
Could you imagine the civilian casualties then?
-
And can you imagine the civilian casualties or threatening Japan into surrendering with a demonstration of the Atomic bomb, rather than an actual offensive utilisation? That's right, none!
Alas, no... and actually I'm still in the middle of Berlin, but I can already tell for sure that it IS an excellent piece of reading. It's incredible how fact text can be made interesting to read, even though the suspect is quite grim.
If only all school history books were like that... ;)
Up to the part where he describes the Soviet rear-guard actions in Berlin? As in, the journal entries of seveal young German women in Berlin at the time? ****ing scary stuff.
-
And can you imagine the civilian casualties or threatening Japan into surrendering with a demonstration of the Atomic bomb, rather than an actual offensive utilisation? That's right, none!
We did have a demonstration. We developed three bombs, we detonated one (Trinity) on July 16th, 1945 in New Mexico.
By detonating our remaining two warheads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place.
-
We did have a demonstration. We developed three bombs, we detonated one (Trinity) on July 16th, 1945 in New Mexico.
Really? Well golly gee-whiz! Here I was thinking that they shipped the very first prototype off to the Air-force to be used without any testing whatsoever! :doubt:
I'm implying that they would have gotten the same demoralising effect by dropping the bomb on an unpopulated area, thereby demonstrating the horrific destructive power, without killing civilians [among other things] in the process and copping **** for the next 60 years
By detonating our remaining two warheads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place.
That's not an absolute. Recently uncovered information points to much higher will in the Japanese leadership to surrender that previously though, and while i'm horribly malinformed on the subject, I can recall that a respectable portion of the historian community consider the bombings to have been unnecessary.
-
We did have a demonstration. We developed three bombs, we detonated one (Trinity) on July 16th, 1945 in New Mexico.
Really? Well golly gee-whiz! Here I was thinking that they shipped the very first prototype off to the Air-force to be used without any testing whatsoever! :doubt:
I'm implying that they would have gotten the same demoralising effect by dropping the bomb on an unpopulated area, thereby demonstrating the horrific destructive power, without killing civilians [among other things] in the process and copping **** for the next 60 years
By detonating our remaining two warheads on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we ended the war months sooner than would otherwise have been the case, saving many lives that would have been lost on both sides if the planned invasion of Japan had taken place.
That's not an absolute. Recently uncovered information points to much higher will in the Japanese leadership to surrender that previously though, and while i'm horribly malinformed on the subject, I can recall that a respectable portion of the historian community consider the bombings to have been unnecessary.
Well, since you said that you were malinformed on the subject, allow me to guide you a bit. Sorry ahead of time if I start to get preachy, as history is one of my hobbies.
#1 - I will concede that the civilian leadership in Japan was cautiously and discreetly sending out diplomatic communiqués as far back as January 1945, following the Allied invasion of Luzon in the Philippines. However, Japanese military officials were unanimously opposed to any negotiations before the use of the atomic bomb.
#2 - While some members of the civilian leadership did use covert diplomatic channels to begin negotiation for peace, on their own they could not negotiate surrender or a cease-fire. Japan, as a Constitutional Monarchy, could only enter into a peace agreement with the unanimous support of the Japanese cabinet, and this cabinet was dominated by militarists from the Japanese Imperial Army and the Japanese Imperial Navy, all of whom were initially opposed to any peace deal. A political stalemate developed between the military and civilian leaders of Japan with the military increasingly determined to fight despite the costs and odds. Many continued to believe that Japan could negotiate more favorable terms of surrender by continuing to inflict high levels of casualties on opposing forces and end the war without an occupation of Japan or a change of government.
#3 – I would like to note the increased Japanese resistance, futile though it was in retrospect, as it became obvious that the result of the war could not be overturned by the Axis powers. The Battle of Okinawa showed this determination to fight on at all costs. More than 120,000 Japanese and 18,000 American troops were killed in the bloodiest battle of the Pacific theater, just 8 weeks before Japan's final surrender. In fact, more civilians died in the Battle of Okinawa than did in the initial blast of the atomic bombings. When the Soviet Union declared war on Japan on August 8, 1945, two days after the bombing of Hiroshima, the Japanese Imperial Army ordered its ill-supplied and weakened forces in Manchuria to fight to the last man. Major General Masakazu Amano, chief of the operations section at Japanese Imperial Headquarters, stated that he was absolutely convinced his defensive preparations, begun in early 1944, could repel any Allied invasion of the home islands with minimal losses.
#4 - After the realization that the destruction of Hiroshima was from a nuclear weapon, the civilian leadership gained more traction in its argument that Japan had to concede defeat and accept the terms of the Potsdam Declaration. Even after the destruction of Nagasaki, the emperor himself needed to intervene to end a deadlock in the cabinet, as military leaders still refused to support surrender. There was even an attempted military coup to prevent the surrender.
#5 - According to some Japanese historians, Japanese civilian leaders who favored surrender saw their salvation in the atomic bombing. The Japanese military was steadfastly refusing to give up, as were the military men in the war cabinet. (Because the cabinet functioned by consensus, even one holdout could prevent it from accepting the declaration.) Thus the peace faction seized on the bombing as a new argument to force surrender. Koichi Kido, one of Emperor Hirohito's closest advisors, stated: "We of the peace party were assisted by the atomic bomb in our endeavor to end the war." Hisatsune Sakomizu, the chief Cabinet secretary in 1945, called the bombing "a golden opportunity given by heaven for Japan to end the war." According to these historians and others, the pro-peace civilian leadership was able to use the destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to convince the military that no amount of courage, skill and fearless combat could help Japan against the power of atomic weapons. Akio Morita, founder of Sony and a Japanese Naval officer during the war, also concludes that it was the atomic bomb and not conventional bombings from B-29s that convinced the Japanese military to agree to peace.
#6 – I would also like to point out that waiting for the Japanese to surrender was not a cost-free option. As a result of the war, noncombatants were dying throughout Asia at a rate of about 200,000 per month. Firebombing had killed well over 100,000 people in Japan since February of 1945, directly and indirectly. That intensive conventional bombing would have continued prior to an invasion. The submarine blockade and the United States Army Air Forces' mining operation had effectively cut off Japan's imports. A complementary operation against Japan's railways was about to begin, isolating the cities of southern Honshu from the food grown elsewhere in the Home Islands. This, combined with the delay in relief supplies from the Allies, could have resulted in a far greater death toll in Japan from famine and malnutrition than actually occurred in the attacks. It has been estimated by some that over 10 million could have starved to death. Meanwhile, in addition to the Soviet attacks, offensives were scheduled for September in southern China and Malaysia.
#7 - The Americans anticipated losing many soldiers in the planned invasion of Japan, although the actual number of expected fatalities and wounded is subject to some debate and depends on the persistence and reliability of Japanese resistance and whether the Americans would have invaded only Kyushu in November 1945 or if a follow up landing near Tokyo, projected for March of 1946, would have been needed. Years after the war, Secretary of State James Byrnes claimed that 500,000 American lives would have been lost. That number has since been repeated authoritatively, but in the summer of 1945, U.S. military planners projected 20,000–110,000 combat deaths from the initial November 1945 invasion, with about three to four times that number wounded. (Total U.S. combat deaths on all fronts in World War II in nearly four years of war were 292,000.) However, these estimates were done using intelligence that grossly underestimated Japanese strength being gathered for the battle of Kyushu in numbers of soldiers and kamikazes, by factors of at least three. Many military advisors held that a worst-case scenario could involve up to 1,000,000 American casualties.
#8 - The atomic bomb hastened the end of the Second World War in Asia liberating hundreds of thousands, including about 200,000 Dutch and 400,000 Indonesians from Japanese concentration camps. Moreover, Japanese troops had committed atrocities against millions of civilians, including the infamous Nanking Massacre, and the early end to the war prevented further bloodshed.
#9 – I would also like to point to an order given by the Japanese War Ministry on August 1, 1944. The order dealt with the disposal and execution of all Allied POWs, numbering over 100,000, if an invasion of the Japanese mainland took place. It is also likely that, considering Japan's previous treatment of POWs, were the Allies to wait out Japan and starve it, the Japanese would have killed all Allied POWs and Chinese prisoners.
#10 - In response to the argument that the large-scale killing of civilians was immoral and a war crime, I argue that the Japanese government waged total war, ordering many civilians (including women and children) to work in factories and military offices and to fight against any invading force. Father John A. Siemes, professor of modern philosophy at Tokyo's Catholic University, and an eyewitness to the atomic bomb attack on Hiroshima wrote in The Avalon Project: The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki:
"We have discussed among ourselves the ethics of the use of the bomb. Some consider it in the same category as poison gas and were against its use on a civil population. Others were of the view that in total war, as carried on in Japan, there was no difference between civilians and soldiers, and that the bomb itself was an effective force tending to end the bloodshed, warning Japan to surrender and thus to avoid total destruction. It seems logical to me that he who supports total war in principle cannot complain of war against civilians."
#11 – I would like to emphasize that Hiroshima and Nagasaki did have strategic military significance. Hiroshima was the location of the Japanese 2nd Army headquarters, while Nagasaki was a major munitions manufacturing center.
#12 - Some historians have claimed that U.S. planners wanted to end the war quickly to minimize potential Soviet acquisition of Japanese-held territory.
-
I think one of the most important factors is; what leader, when given the weapon with the potential to quickly bring an end a brutal, costly and damaging war, can afford not to use it?
-
Well, i'm convinced. Good sir, I tip my hat to you.
Back OT, the... uh... what the hell is this thread about, again?
-
Humbug.
I don't buy into that stuff.
The Atom bombs was a 100% pure crime. Even invadin Japan was a beter idea. Why? Soldiers are there to fight and they are prepared to die... fair game in a matter of speaking. civies are not. Period.
Secondly, Japan was at the end of hte rope - they suffered horrible losses, theri pacific fleet has been all but destroyed, they scraped drops of oil from all over jsut ot send the last fleet. Their airplanes were being shot down faster than they could produce new ones - they ere lost.
Japan is a island country - the USA could have just blockaded the ports (they ruled in the air and sea) and wait. Anchor the whole pacific fleet so it can be seen from the capital. That's a show of force.
-
Humbug.
I don't buy into that stuff.
The Atom bombs was a 100% pure crime. Even invadin Japan was a beter idea. Why? Soldiers are there to fight and they are prepared to die... fair game in a matter of speaking. civies are not. Period.
If we had invaded Japan, we wouldn't have just been fighting soldiers. Japanese civilians had basically been trained by the Japanese military to fear the Americans and to fight back should an invasion happen. In the end, there would've been more civilian casualties through that course of action than what their was in the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Secondly, Japan was at the end of hte rope - they suffered horrible losses, theri pacific fleet has been all but destroyed, they scraped drops of oil from all over jsut ot send the last fleet. Their airplanes were being shot down faster than they could produce new ones - they ere lost.
Japan is a island country - the USA could have just blockaded the ports (they ruled in the air and sea) and wait. Anchor the whole pacific fleet so it can be seen from the capital. That's a show of force.
Very true, but the Japanese military was prepared to fight to the last ship, the last plane, and the last man. Surrender was not an option. The Home Islands were their Alamo. They were either going to hold us there, or die trying.
And its not like we could've waited out on the open seas either. The Soviets had their own agenda, which was to try and grab as much Japanese territory as possible so that they could have a say in everything.
-
That's why I said siege, blockade, not attack. You jsut need to put enough pressure.
Like I said, anchor the whole pacific fleet so the japs can see it, and deploy a nuke somewhere where they cna also see it..
---------------
Some people have a wierd definition fo defense.
If another country attacks mine, we fight back, push them completely out of our territory and break the back of their military might, then our job of defense is done.
AS soon as there no one attackign your country anymore the defense is over.
Going into the country of the enemy and bombing his cities is NOT defense by any sane definition. To put it somple it's vengance and desire to grind the enemy into the dust when he's bleeding.
-
That's why I said siege, blockade, not attack. You jsut need to put enough pressure.
Like I said, anchor the whole pacific fleet so the japs can see it, and deploy a nuke somewhere where they cna also see it..
---------------
Some people have a wierd definition fo defense.
If another country attacks mine, we fight back, push them completely out of our territory and break the back of their military might, then our job of defense is done.
AS soon as there no one attackign your country anymore the defense is over.
Going into the country of the enemy and bombing his cities is NOT defense by any sane definition. To put it somple it's vengance and desire to grind the enemy into the dust when he's bleeding.
I like how you define starving an entire nation into submission as being a nicer option (and bring up the already rather discredited idea of 'showing' a vital tactical - secret - weapon without knowing it's effect upon the enemy or even if it'd be a convincing display of power rather than a really flashy light; me, if I was a Japanese observer being 'shown' that, I'd be entitled to question why it was being only shown and not used as a weapon); from what I remember of previous discussions (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34361.0.html), it's been worked out that the resultant famine would have killed more Japanese civillians than the 2 bombs did.
(as an aside, the Japanese were IIRC training civillians to be, for example, anti-tank suicide bombers. The entire population was subjected to years and years of propaganda to convince them that the gaijin were monsters who would rape and torture them)
EDIT; oh yes - let's say you demonstrate the nuke and - as with the first bombing in WW2 - Japan doesn't surrender. you now have 1 nuke left, and a Japan fully alerted to the threat from above. How much harder could that make the Enola Gays' job (the Japanese neglected to intercept the 3 plane flight as part of fuel conservation, and because no raid beyond recon was expected for a single bomber)? Or what if that raid failed, as the Nagasaki bombing nearly did (Nagasaki was the secondary - the primary was cloud-obscured Kokura - and the plane nearly ran out of fuel. If Nagasaki was also obscured, the crew had orders to dump the bomb in the ocean)? We'd have either the same mass starvation and/or mass deaths from invasion (including Japanese civillians - and indeed those forced into service), and the knowledge of pissing away weapons that could win the war.
-
It's worthwhile to note that the Japanese knew the second bomb was coming but made no attempt to intercept it either; those missions used a special frequency, and the Japanese Navy's communications intelligence people, the Tokumu Han, had it listed. They could not decipher the target but they knew the second bomb was coming. If they had wanted to they could have scrambled fighters to intercept any small number of bombers that were inbound. The fighters were held on the ground for later use against the still-expected invasion.
There's a rather poignant comment on it in David Kahn's The Codebreakers. "As the traffic analysts...mechanically plotted the signal, they were, in the Japanese phrase, swallowing their tears."
-
I like how you define starving an entire nation into submission as being a nicer option (and bring up the already rather discredited idea of 'showing' a vital tactical - secret - weapon without knowing it's effect upon the enemy or even if it'd be a convincing display of power rather than a really flashy light; me, if I was a Japanese observer being 'shown' that, I'd be entitled to question why it was being only shown and not used as a weapon); from what I remember of previous discussions (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34361.0.html), it's been worked out that the resultant famine would have killed more Japanese civillians than the 2 bombs did.
(as an aside, the Japanese were IIRC training civillians to be, for example, anti-tank suicide bombers. The entire population was subjected to years and years of propaganda to convince them that the gaijin were monsters who would rape and torture them)
EDIT; oh yes - let's say you demonstrate the nuke and - as with the first bombing in WW2 - Japan doesn't surrender. you now have 1 nuke left, and a Japan fully alerted to the threat from above. How much harder could that make the Enola Gays' job (the Japanese neglected to intercept the 3 plane flight as part of fuel conservation, and because no raid beyond recon was expected for a single bomber)? Or what if that raid failed, as the Nagasaki bombing nearly did (Nagasaki was the secondary - the primary was cloud-obscured Kokura - and the plane nearly ran out of fuel. If Nagasaki was also obscured, the crew had orders to dump the bomb in the ocean)? We'd have either the same mass starvation and/or mass deaths from invasion (including Japanese civillians - and indeed those forced into service), and the knowledge of pissing away weapons that could win the war.
1. People don't die from famine in one day. A blockade wouldn't ruin the country immidately as tehy would have some stockpiled food that woukd be rationed. It's the pressure ascpet. No fuel, no reinforcement, no means to effectivly fight back, the whole enemy fleet parked infront of your window and the jsut creamed that mountain over there with theri secreat weapon.
Give them a few days to think it over/for the people to revolt.
Yeah, it is possible it would not have worked.. but then again, nobody tried this approach first.
And if it was me, I would try EVERY way to end the war without nuking civies.
When you think about it, did the US REALLY needed to blast Japan?
So what if it didn't want to surrender - it's military power is over, it's no threat to you. Given time they would come to theri senses even without you bombing them.
-
I like how you define starving an entire nation into submission as being a nicer option (and bring up the already rather discredited idea of 'showing' a vital tactical - secret - weapon without knowing it's effect upon the enemy or even if it'd be a convincing display of power rather than a really flashy light; me, if I was a Japanese observer being 'shown' that, I'd be entitled to question why it was being only shown and not used as a weapon); from what I remember of previous discussions (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34361.0.html), it's been worked out that the resultant famine would have killed more Japanese civillians than the 2 bombs did.
(as an aside, the Japanese were IIRC training civillians to be, for example, anti-tank suicide bombers. The entire population was subjected to years and years of propaganda to convince them that the gaijin were monsters who would rape and torture them)
EDIT; oh yes - let's say you demonstrate the nuke and - as with the first bombing in WW2 - Japan doesn't surrender. you now have 1 nuke left, and a Japan fully alerted to the threat from above. How much harder could that make the Enola Gays' job (the Japanese neglected to intercept the 3 plane flight as part of fuel conservation, and because no raid beyond recon was expected for a single bomber)? Or what if that raid failed, as the Nagasaki bombing nearly did (Nagasaki was the secondary - the primary was cloud-obscured Kokura - and the plane nearly ran out of fuel. If Nagasaki was also obscured, the crew had orders to dump the bomb in the ocean)? We'd have either the same mass starvation and/or mass deaths from invasion (including Japanese civillians - and indeed those forced into service), and the knowledge of pissing away weapons that could win the war.
1. People don't die from famine in one day. A blockade wouldn't ruin the country immidately as tehy would have some stockpiled food that woukd be rationed. It's the pressure ascpet. No fuel, no reinforcement, no means to effectivly fight back, the whole enemy fleet parked infront of your window and the jsut creamed that mountain over there with theri secreat weapon.
Give them a few days to think it over/for the people to revolt.
Yeah, it is possible it would not have worked.. but then again, nobody tried this approach first.
And if it was me, I would try EVERY way to end the war without nuking civies.
When you think about it, did the US REALLY needed to blast Japan?
So what if it didn't want to surrender - it's military power is over, it's no threat to you. Given time they would come to theri senses even without you bombing them.
You do realize that our Navy was already doing that? The German U-boats always get the press about how they disrupted Allied shipping in both wars, but our own submarines did a damn good job of strangling the Japanese economy. They sunk most of Japan's merchant marine fleet, intercepted many troop transports and cut off nearly all the oil imports that were essential to warfare. By early 1945 the oil tanks were dry. The Pacific fleet had an effective blockade of Japan already going.
Despite all this, the Japanese were not going to surrender. They proved that in the battles of Tarawa, Iwo Jima, and Okinawa. They proved that with their kamikaze attacks, which the US Navy reported that over a third of the Pacific Fleet was affected by. The US Navy didn't want to invade Japan because of those kamikaze attacks. They wanted to continue the blockade and increase the strategic bombing campaign already going on in Japan, which was tasked with...
1) Destroying industrial infrastructure (factories, roads, and railways)
2) Destroying the Japanese rice fields.
So which is worse....
Millions of people dying from starvation
200,000 people dying in two nuclear attacks
-
I like how you define starving an entire nation into submission as being a nicer option (and bring up the already rather discredited idea of 'showing' a vital tactical - secret - weapon without knowing it's effect upon the enemy or even if it'd be a convincing display of power rather than a really flashy light; me, if I was a Japanese observer being 'shown' that, I'd be entitled to question why it was being only shown and not used as a weapon); from what I remember of previous discussions (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,34361.0.html), it's been worked out that the resultant famine would have killed more Japanese civillians than the 2 bombs did.
(as an aside, the Japanese were IIRC training civillians to be, for example, anti-tank suicide bombers. The entire population was subjected to years and years of propaganda to convince them that the gaijin were monsters who would rape and torture them)
EDIT; oh yes - let's say you demonstrate the nuke and - as with the first bombing in WW2 - Japan doesn't surrender. you now have 1 nuke left, and a Japan fully alerted to the threat from above. How much harder could that make the Enola Gays' job (the Japanese neglected to intercept the 3 plane flight as part of fuel conservation, and because no raid beyond recon was expected for a single bomber)? Or what if that raid failed, as the Nagasaki bombing nearly did (Nagasaki was the secondary - the primary was cloud-obscured Kokura - and the plane nearly ran out of fuel. If Nagasaki was also obscured, the crew had orders to dump the bomb in the ocean)? We'd have either the same mass starvation and/or mass deaths from invasion (including Japanese civillians - and indeed those forced into service), and the knowledge of pissing away weapons that could win the war.
1. People don't die from famine in one day. A blockade wouldn't ruin the country immidately as tehy would have some stockpiled food that woukd be rationed. It's the pressure ascpet. No fuel, no reinforcement, no means to effectivly fight back, the whole enemy fleet parked infront of your window and the jsut creamed that mountain over there with theri secreat weapon.
Give them a few days to think it over/for the people to revolt.
Yeah, it is possible it would not have worked.. but then again, nobody tried this approach first.
And if it was me, I would try EVERY way to end the war without nuking civies.
When you think about it, did the US REALLY needed to blast Japan?
So what if it didn't want to surrender - it's military power is over, it's no threat to you. Given time they would come to theri senses even without you bombing them.
so would you have just stopped the Allies in Europe at the border of Germany, then? would you ban all bombings full stop during WW2? Because the firebombings of Tokyo, of Dresden, etc were just as devastating (more so in certain cases, considering the prolonged campaigns).
Oh, and as BHF noted, Operation starvation had been ongoing for 5-6 months when the war ended. Few days my arse...
It's easy to go 'oh, x and y would work' with blase hindsight. you put yourself there; what if it didn't work? How many civillians would you sacrifice in starvation, how many POWs to the time delay of 'displays', how many soldiers in ground invasions, to avoid using a weapon that could end the war with less deaths than either 3 options? How would history judge you, the leader who pussy footed around ending the war, who gambled the lives of the servicemen 'under' his command, because he was scared of using his most effective weapon?
-
Kill X to save Y, especilyl when there IS NO MORE THREAT you your country is just not a option.
No, I wouldn't invade, no I wouldn't firebomb and no I wouldn't drop a bomb on the city.
Who gives a f*** wether Japan will sign a piece of paper today or a year from now when it's beat.
What I would do is negotiate for the release of POW's and make a convincing display of force.
-
So what you're saying is that you'd be happy to stop the US, British, Russian, etc on the borders of Germany and leave be, then?
-
Kill X to save Y, especilyl when there IS NO MORE THREAT you your country is just not a option.
No, I wouldn't invade, no I wouldn't firebomb and no I wouldn't drop a bomb on the city.
Who gives a f*** wether Japan will sign a piece of paper today or a year from now when it's beat.
What I would do is negotiate for the release of POW's and make a convincing display of force.
There is a problem with your logic. You make it sound like the entire war would've stopped just because you park your fleet off the coast. If you really believe that, then you really need to read some history books.
Was the Japanese military broken? Yes. Did they really care though? No. Surrender was not in their vocabulary. An honorable Japanese soldier would rather die than surrender. By not invading, or not strategically bombing their infastructure, and by not using the bomb, you would be inviting the Japanese to prolong the war because they would use the time to lick their wounds. When you have your enemy defeated, you don't let up. You keep applying pressure until they give in. The Japanese finally gave in once we dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs.
As for negotiating for the release of Allied POW's, the Japanese would've likely killed them all before they ever would hand them over. After a US State Department communique involving Japanese treatment of Allied POW's was seen in Japan, the Japanese War Ministry invoked a Kill-All policy to annihilate principal witnesses to their atrocities--the surviving POWs. Considering the Bataan Death March, the execution of 150 POWs at a POW camp in Palawan, the standing order to execute all POWs in Japan should the Allies invade, I think its safe to say that they would kill them all before ever handing them over.
-
Here's the bottom line that I think a lot of people are missing (and yes, I realize it's cliche, but it's so damn true): War is hell. It's utter, absolute hell. If you're waging total, absolute war, a world war, you're going to do things that seem brutal, uncivilized, and perhaps even utterly reprehensible to people looking into the past from more peaceful times. But that's why it's called "total" war. You do what you have to do to win, and that's the end of the story. We've seen time and again, over the latter half of the twentieth century and up to the present day, how the concept of "limited" war, while utterly necessary at times, can lead to a whole slew of troubles. If you're fighting a powerful enemy with a massive army who wants nothing more than to utterly defeat you, you're going to use whatever's at your disposal to defeat them. We had the bomb, we used the bomb, and we stopped the war. That was it.
At the same time, though, I can't help but be reminded of Oppenheimer's quote of Hindu scripture as he watched the Trinity site: "I have become Death, destroyer of worlds." Even at that moment, the people who created the bomb knew what they had just managed to do. All things considered, it would have been better for all of us if no one had ever had the idea to turn nuclear energy into a force of destruction.
But all of this is really completely off-topic. So...how 'bout that NTF? :p
-
Kill X to save Y, especilyl when there IS NO MORE THREAT you your country is just not a option.
No, I wouldn't invade, no I wouldn't firebomb and no I wouldn't drop a bomb on the city.
Who gives a f*** wether Japan will sign a piece of paper today or a year from now when it's beat.
What I would do is negotiate for the release of POW's and make a convincing display of force.
There is a problem with your logic. You make it sound like the entire war would've stopped just because you park your fleet off the coast. If you really believe that, then you really need to read some history books.
Was the Japanese military broken? Yes. Did they really care though? No. Surrender was not in their vocabulary. An honorable Japanese soldier would rather die than surrender. By not invading, or not strategically bombing their infastructure, and by not using the bomb, you would be inviting the Japanese to prolong the war because they would use the time to lick their wounds. When you have your enemy defeated, you don't let up. You keep applying pressure until they give in. The Japanese finally gave in once we dropped not one, but two nuclear bombs.
As for negotiating for the release of Allied POW's, the Japanese would've likely killed them all before they ever would hand them over. After a US State Department communique involving Japanese treatment of Allied POW's was seen in Japan, the Japanese War Ministry invoked a Kill-All policy to annihilate principal witnesses to their atrocities--the surviving POWs. Considering the Bataan Death March, the execution of 150 POWs at a POW camp in Palawan, the standing order to execute all POWs in Japan should the Allies invade, I think its safe to say that they would kill them all before ever handing them over.
Wether Japan cares or not is irrelevant when they can't do nothing to stop you.
What could they have possibly done? Build ships? It takes a lot of time and it would be sunk even before it left the dock. Besides, they didn't have any fuel left.
Build airplanes? Their aircraft industry was in shambles and the US had air superiority. the pacific fleet (especially the newer ships) have had their AAF armament increased and the few fighters the Japs would launch would be shredded.
The onyl thing japs had left was manpower. But you can't fight the navy or airforce from the ground.
As for hte POW's, you really can't tell that the japs wouldn't have released them given the right incentive.
Offer the removal of the blockade for essential supplies in exchange for their release...no questions asked. Or looseer surrender conditions.. tehre are many other options.
At the end of the day - if there's gonna be killing of civilians, then I will not be the one to do it. Let the japs bloody their hands, I won't bloody mine.
-
Wether Japan cares or not is irrelevant when they can't do nothing to stop you.
What could they have possibly done? Build ships? It takes a lot of time and it would be sunk even before it left the dock. Besides, they didn't have any fuel left.
Build airplanes? Their aircraft industry was in shambles and the US had air superiority. the pacific fleet (especially the newer ships) have had their AAF armament increased and the few fighters the Japs would launch would be shredded.
The onyl thing japs had left was manpower. But you can't fight the navy or airforce from the ground.
As for hte POW's, you really can't tell that the japs wouldn't have released them given the right incentive.
Offer the removal of the blockade for essential supplies in exchange for their release...no questions asked. Or looseer surrender conditions.. tehre are many other options.
At the end of the day - if there's gonna be killing of civilians, then I will not be the one to do it. Let the japs bloody their hands, I won't bloody mine.
How would you stop Japan building planes if you're not going to bomb the citiies where the aircraft factories are? It's easy to say 'let the Japs bloody their hands' when you're not the one whose troops are going to be tortured and killed. Why not just say that after Pearl Harbour and avoid the whole war?
-
How would you stop Japan building planes if you're not going to bomb the citiies where the aircraft factories are?
Bombing factories, not cities. Besides, bombing the airfields would be enough... not that it would help the japs even if they could build a large number of airplanes under diege conditions, since they still lacked fuel and the USA still had air superiority.
It's easy to say 'let the Japs bloody their hands' when you're not the one whose troops are going to be tortured and killed. Why not just say that after Pearl Harbour and avoid the whole war?
It's never easy. I would do everything I can to free my tropops EXCEPT killing civilians. I would try every trick in the book before resorting to something as extreeme as that.
And one other thing - soldiers are expected to die or sacrifice their lives for civilians. Not the other way around.
-
Bombing factories, not cities. Besides, bombing the airfields would be enough... not that it would help the japs even if they could build a large number of airplanes under diege conditions, since they still lacked fuel and the USA still had air superiority.
Factories were mostly in densly populated areas and you don't have the smart bombs of today. We initially tried precision bombing, but the weather of Japan made it virtually impossible as bombs dropped from high altitude were destabilized by high winds.
-
How would you stop Japan building planes if you're not going to bomb the citiies where the aircraft factories are?
Bombing factories, not cities. Besides, bombing the airfields would be enough... not that it would help the japs even if they could build a large number of airplanes under diege conditions, since they still lacked fuel and the USA still had air superiority.
[/quote]
Factories were in cities, and there was insufficient bomb accuracy to discriminate. Also, take that tactic and - guess what - the Japenese would make sure all their factories were in densely populated urban areas - :O !
Also, airfields can be very small - fields, in fact - for that eras' aircraft. And what if the Japanese decide to put lots of civillians on their airfield once they suss out your tactic?
It's easy to say 'let the Japs bloody their hands' when you're not the one whose troops are going to be tortured and killed. Why not just say that after Pearl Harbour and avoid the whole war?
It's never easy. I would do everything I can to free my tropops EXCEPT killing civilians. I would try every trick in the book before resorting to something as extreeme as that.
And one other thing - soldiers are expected to die or sacrifice their lives for civilians. Not the other way around.
There were civillians in Japanese POW camps, y'know.
Anyways, are you saying that a soldiers life is worthless compared to a civillian? what about conscripts? Are soldiers just meat to be thrown against the grinder, is that your military tactic - soldiers are bullet-shields?
Ah, yes, and you've not answered my previous question - So what you're saying is that you'd be happy to stop the US, British, Russian, etc on the borders of Germany and leave be, then?[/n]
-
Frankly, Japan couln't threaten US assets anymore, even if they left it completely alone.
The USA became a real superpower in that war, and no production effort from Japan could have changed that.
They might build planes but what can they do with them? They had no carriers left to use them against US territory due to their limited range.
If they made ships they would be sunk. If they had planes with sufficient range they would be shot down..and they still had the problem with fuel..
And to make it clear - I cannot and never will justify or even try to rationalize murder. As soon as you jump on that train of though you're heading in the wrong direction. Kill X innocents to save Y is not an option.
You allways have options. Hell, why not a massive paratropper assault on the POW camps and chopper extraction? If anything else, the US had resources for something like this.
Besides, Japan would surrender in a few days anyway, simply becuse he was loosing badly on the other front too. If the Us stopped, do you think Russia would too?
-
Perhaps if we could get back on topic...?
-
Frankly, Japan couln't threaten US assets anymore, even if they left it completely alone.
The USA became a real superpower in that war, and no production effort from Japan could have changed that.
They might build planes but what can they do with them? They had no carriers left to use them against US territory due to their limited range.
If they made ships they would be sunk. If they had planes with sufficient range they would be shot down..and they still had the problem with fuel..
And to make it clear - I cannot and never will justify or even try to rationalize murder. As soon as you jump on that train of though you're heading in the wrong direction. Kill X innocents to save Y is not an option.
You allways have options. Hell, why not a massive paratropper assault on the POW camps and chopper extraction? If anything else, the US had resources for something like this.
Besides, Japan would surrender in a few days anyway, simply becuse he was loosing badly on the other front too. If the Us stopped, do you think Russia would too?
So what you're saying is that you'd be happy to stop the US, British, Russian, etc on the borders of Germany and leave be, then?
EDIT; wait, chopper extraction? You do know what war this is, don't you? (hint; the Sikorsky R-4 isn't exactly built for chopper extraction; you'd need more than the few hundred built just to extract one camps' worth. Oh, and a side note; there were over 200,000 civillians dying in Asia for each month the war lasted at the end - that wouldn't stop during your blockade)
-
They might build planes but what can they do with them? They had no carriers left to use them against US territory due to their limited range.
And if they decided to build nuclear weapons themselves what then?
-
[pop-in]NTF attack the Coly? First of all, when ever we fly NTF missions, in the main campaign (sp?) and the multiplayer missions, check the weapons. Subach and rockeyes. Crap ships, crap weapons. They had no hope of having even a marginaly sucessfull suicide attack agienst the Coly. Can't believe you overlooked that fact.[/pop-in]
-
I think I would get some more cheat codes for my pilots. But since I told some GTVA guys in the other thread, they have them to, so it's more of a battle of reflexes. ahh! a bad guy!!! ~-K!!!~-K!!!! Whew... --uh ~- *BOOM*
-
Frankly, Japan couln't threaten US assets anymore, even if they left it completely alone.
The USA became a real superpower in that war, and no production effort from Japan could have changed that.
They might build planes but what can they do with them? They had no carriers left to use them against US territory due to their limited range.
If they made ships they would be sunk. If they had planes with sufficient range they would be shot down..and they still had the problem with fuel..
And to make it clear - I cannot and never will justify or even try to rationalize murder. As soon as you jump on that train of though you're heading in the wrong direction. Kill X innocents to save Y is not an option.
You allways have options. Hell, why not a massive paratropper assault on the POW camps and chopper extraction? If anything else, the US had resources for something like this.
Besides, Japan would surrender in a few days anyway, simply becuse he was loosing badly on the other front too. If the Us stopped, do you think Russia would too?
Chopper extraction..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
That was just too funny.
And to answer your question, if the US stopped, the Soviets wouldn't, as they liked the idea of getting a zone of occupation in Japan. Stalin was fuming when we dropped the bomb and screwed with his plans.
-
Chopper extraction..... :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
I can only assume he meant bearded guys on motorbikes.
-
I think I would get some more cheat codes for my pilots. But since I told some GTVA guys in the other thread, they have them to, so it's more of a battle of reflexes. ahh! a bad guy!!! ~-K!!!~-K!!!! Whew... --uh ~- *BOOM*
Nah, typing speed. www.freespace2.com ~i!, (holds down ~) *glad he has autotarget on* KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK KKKKKKKKKKK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1!
-
And to make it clear - I cannot and never will justify or even try to rationalize murder. As soon as you jump on that train of though you're heading in the wrong direction. Kill X innocents to save Y is not an option.
-
And to make it clear - I cannot and never will justify or even try to rationalize murder. As soon as you jump on that train of though you're heading in the wrong direction. Kill X innocents to save Y is not an option.
Are you going to answer my question or continue to look like a hypocrite by avoiding it?
So what you're saying is that you'd be happy to stop the US, British, Russian, etc armies on the borders of Germany and leave be, then?
Look, it's in bold and italics! So you know it's there to answer.
-
War is all about sacrifice, and sometimes, killing a hundred thousand people to save millions of people has to be done. Yeah, it sucks, but in the end, I would rather have a couple hundred thousand people dead from a nuclear bomb than millions upon millions of people who would be killed had we not dropped the bomb.
In the end, your policy of inaction would've had far greater consequences than the nuclear bomb did.
-
And then 60 years on people like Trashman would complain about the inhumanity of the US navy to have blockaded Japan and cause a famine.
-
Given that about 1.4m civillians would have died* in the first week the war was extended by the TM doctrine of doing precisely bugger all (except targeting any factories thoughtfully placed well away from civillian areas and only staffed by military personnel and marked as such with a big red bullseye - oh, and setting off your only Really Big Bomb in the ocean to make a nice scary flash), there probably wouldn't be many too people left in asia to complain, at least.
*assuming the Japanese, with their well known exemplary treatment of the civillian population and POWs, didn't decided to operate collective punishment in response to the famine - knowing the TM army won't touch their civvies in reprisals