[TrashMan]

I'll give you all a litle example of war.

The war in my own country - when our neighbour Serbia invaded. it moved in quickly, wihout warning, took large parts of our territory. We were unprepared and very badly equipped, but in the end we broke the back of their army and drove them out of our territory.
But we stopped at the border. We now had a better and larger army and more tanks and artilery then they did. We could have continued into their territory and shel ltheir capital to force them into a surrender. But we didn't. We didn't need to.

Their army was broken and they had no more strength to attack again. Even if they did they would be repeeled quickly now.

The was in the pacific was in esence the same. With the differnece that the japanese defeat was FAR more bitter (serbs still had a good sized army and supplies)

If the enemy can't touch you anymore, then why go after him?

Like we did, let time and political pressure do their work. Serbia in the end gave in. Japan was under far more pressue and in worse condition than serbia was.

THERE WAS NO NEED FOR BOMBING OF ANY KIND!

Especialyl not for a A-bomb. The only reason US dropped it was to test it and the effects of radiation.

[Bobboau]

20 years from now after Serbia has rebuilt is't military and you are liveing under it's dominion, I'll remember to ask you if it was such a good idea to leave them with the idea that they had a right to your land.

or that's what I would be saying if we hadn't finished what you couldn't, I know some Albanians who sure do wish you would have.

[Martinus]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Especialyl not for a A-bomb. The only reason US dropped it was to test it and the effects of radiation.

[color=66ff00]Actually the technology was rigorously tested. The effects of radiation poisoning on humans was well documented at the time from the myriad experiments in particle physics, x-ray photograpy etc.

There's loads to read on this in the wikipedia Trashman.
[/color]

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
I'll give you all a litle example of war.

The war in my own country - when our neighbour Serbia invaded. it moved in quickly, wihout warning, took large parts of our territory. We were unprepared and very badly equipped, but in the end we broke the back of their army and drove them out of our territory.
But we stopped at the border. We now had a better and larger army and more tanks and artilery then they did. We could have continued into their territory and shel ltheir capital to force them into a surrender. But we didn't. We didn't need to.

Their army was broken and they had no more strength to attack again. Even if they did they would be repeeled quickly now.

The was in the pacific was in esence the same. With the differnece that the japanese defeat was FAR more bitter (serbs still had a good sized army and supplies)

If the enemy can't touch you anymore, then why go after him?

Like we did, let time and political pressure do their work. Serbia in the end gave in. Japan was under far more pressue and in worse condition than serbia was.

THERE WAS NO NEED FOR BOMBING OF ANY KIND!

Especialyl not for a A-bomb. The only reason US dropped it was to test it and the effects of radiation.

Oh dear.  

Firstly, the Yugoslav civil war was pretty much a minor conflict in the annals of history.  ****ty affair as all wars are, but on an entirely smaller scale.  World War 2 was on a much, much larger scale, and with a different scale of enemy and threat.  Immediately the external pressures change; far from being an external threat of possible intervention from the major powers on warring parties, the major powers had already picked sides and started fighting (let's not also forget there was no United Nations in 1945 to try and mediate).

(lets just gloss over the allegations of war crimes committed during attacks on/ forced expulsion of serbians in Operation Storm when going into the 'holier than thous', shall we?)

Croatia was also fighting a war of independence, so the tactical objective would have been to remove Serbian forces.  In contrast, World War 2 was effectively a war of survival; I'll mention again (for the what, 3rd or 3th time?) that there were still people being held in concentration camps by the Japanese.  The Japanese posed a continuing threat, same as Hitler would have if Germany was left alone  (I notice you avoided addressing that question, too).

Now, AFAIK the Serbians don't believe in the Samuri code of honour as the Japanese did; y'know, the whole death before surrender thing.   It's pretty much historically known.  Japan was also an island nation, intrinsically making it more secure against invasion (see Okinawa as an examplar).  

Worth noting also that there was an implicit threat of intervention from the major world powers if the Dayton accord hadn't been signed, too; in the case of Japan there wasn't really any further intervention possible, any more pressure to be brought to bear militarily or politically (well, except the hitherto secret nuclear bomb); and despite all that, historical documents show the government was determined to fight on.

Now, had Japan simply been left alone (remember, they were not going to surrender; it took a direct intervention from the emperor and 2 nuclear bombs to get that), do you really think they'd have went 'sorry, old chaps, won't do that again.  Here, have your territory back'?

You see, there's this little thing about modern, militaristic, expansionistic nations.  They can build new weapons.

(helpfully ignoring the hundreds of thousands - millions including Chinese IIRC - of POWs and civillians held in concentration camps; after all, Japan didn't recognise the Geneva convention)

Again I ask - would you have pulled back Allied troops from Germany in the knowledge that Hitler was defeated?

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by Bobboau
20 years from now after Serbia has rebuilt is't military and you are liveing under it's dominion, I'll remember to ask you if it was such a good idea to leave them with the idea that they had a right to your land.

A lot of things can happen in 20 years. The world might end too you know?

And an idea is not something you can destroy/kill by bombing cities.

Japan was done for. It had no way whatsoever of attacking the US. it's economy was in ruins too. US had the largets naval forces and the mighties army in the world.
If the Japanese were evr to try to build up a sizable force and attack the US (not bloddy likely) the US would notice that in the early stages and stop it cold in the roots... Or do you think you can hide a naval fleet?

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14


Oh dear.

 Oh dear ^2

Firstly, the Yugoslav civil war was pretty much a minor conflict in the annals of history.  ****ty affair as all wars are, but on an entirely smaller scale.  World War 2 was on a much, much larger scale, and with a different scale of enemy and threat.  Immediately the external pressures change; far from being an external threat of possible intervention from the major powers on warring parties, the major powers had already picked sides and started fighting (let's not also forget there was no United Nations in 1945 to try and mediate).

Size of the conflict is irreleveant.

(lets just gloss over the allegations of war crimes committed during attacks on/ forced expulsion of serbians in Operation Storm when going into the 'holier than thous', shall we?)

ALLEGED.. tehre were a FEW isolated incidents but they were blown way out of proportions. It's becouse of Croatia stepping out that Yugoslavia broke up. Europe wanted a singel large state in that region. Suffice to say we're not beloved right now becouse of that.

Croatia was also fighting a war of independence, so the tactical objective would have been to remove Serbian forces.  In contrast, World War 2 was effectively a war of survival; I'll mention again (for the what, 3rd or 3th time?) that there were still people being held in concentration camps by the Japanese.  The Japanese posed a continuing threat, same as Hitler would have if Germany was left alone  (I notice you avoided addressing that question, too).

Continuing threat? With what would japan attakc the US? Stones?
They had no more seaworthy ship and only a handfull of plains and their economy and industry were drained becouse of the war effort.
Hitler was allso  on the deathbed by the end of the war anway. Most generals wanted to surrender...

Now, AFAIK the Serbians don't believe in the Samuri code of honour as the Japanese did; y'know, the whole death before surrender thing.   It's pretty much historically known.  Japan was also an island nation, intrinsically making it more secure against invasion (see Okinawa as an examplar).  

If you lived areound these part then you should know just how fanatical some of their generals/soldier are. Thhy still havn't given up on the idea of Greater Serbia...

Now, had Japan simply been left alone (remember, they were not going to surrender; it took a direct intervention from the emperor and 2 nuclear bombs to get that), do you really think they'd have went 'sorry, old chaps, won't do that again.  Here, have your territory back'?

Given the bombing was done and the other approach was never tried, we're never gonna now, now won't we?

You see, there's this little thing about modern, militaristic, expansionistic nations.  They can build new weapons.

You really belive Japan posed any threat to the US? What weapons can they build within a year or two to challenge the US?

[/B][/quote]

[Bobboau]

do you even remember what happened between WW1 and WW2?

"Thhy still havn't given up on the idea of Greater Serbia.."

my point exactly.
Japan no longer has designs on the rest of Asia.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Japan was done for. It had no way whatsoever of attacking the US. it's economy was in ruins too. US had the largets naval forces and the mighties army in the world.

Substitute Japan with Germany, US with UK and wind the clock back to 10 years before WWII. See?

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan

Size of the conflict is irreleveant.

Of course it's relevant.  It impacts the interventionism possible from the international community, impacts the strategic necessity for continuing the war, impacts the continuing fighting in other areas.

Don't throw out this 'irrelevant' rubbish when you can't address the facts.  I doubt you'd find a single person here - or indeed a historian outside - who'd view the Yugoslav civil war as a paradigm for the Pacific campaign of World War 2.

[q]
ALLEGED.. tehre were a FEW isolated incidents but they were blown way out of proportions. It's becouse of Croatia stepping out that Yugoslavia broke up. Europe wanted a singel large state in that region. Suffice to say we're not beloved right now becouse of that. [/q]

Well, all I said was 'alleged'.  But if you really want to claim rightousness, you have to address the existance these claims, not blame them on europe, the media, etc.  Particularly when going your high horse about civillian casualties to bombing (did Croatia even have a functioning air force capable of bombing?), I would think it's worth mentioning in your exemplar the allegation of forced expulsion of 200,000 civvies.

(Clearly the ICTY feels it's more than a few isolated incidents if it's indicting Gotovina (and the now-late Bobetko) over war crimes)

[q]
Continuing threat? With what would japan attakc the US? Stones?
They had no more seaworthy ship and only a handfull of plains and their economy and industry were drained becouse of the war effort.
Hitler was allso  on the deathbed by the end of the war anway. Most generals wanted to surrender...[/q]

So you'd have an even better reason to condemn continuing to attack Germany - because Hitler wouldn't be a long term threat.  And yet you haven't.  Why?

Countries rebuild.  Look at Germany post WW1, for example.  And that was under a really harsh peace settlement.  Or look at Russias rapid mobilisation in WW2 itself.

And, for time number 4, what about the thousands of POWS?  Having established through historical fact Japan was not willing to surrender, what of them?  AFAIK you've simply suggested the US and Allies bugger off down the road.

[q]
If you lived areound these part then you should know just how fanatical some of their generals/soldier are. Thhy still havn't given up on the idea of Greater Serbia...[/q]

How many kamikazes were in the Serbian army?  Did they ring their territory with women and children as a human shield or train medical orderlies as suicide bombers?

i.e. did they show a willingness as a society to kill themselves rather than surrender?

How many Serbian generals killed themselves rather than accept surrender?

Given the bombing was done and the other approach was never tried, we're never gonna now, now won't we?
 

So your best alternative is to leave the Japanese alone with 100,000 allied POWS and over 600,000 in concentration camps?  Because we know they wouldn't surrender, it's been proven historically time and time again.

You really belive Japan posed any threat to the US? What weapons can they build within a year or two to challenge the US?
 

Who said a year or 2?  Who said the US?  Not me.  'Threat' constitutes any threat to regional security; perhaps the Japanese might have decided to move on Singapore or Hong Kong again, having learnt tactical lessons of the last war?

 Again, would you have been happy to leave Hitler in charge of Nazi Germany once their occupied territories had been liberated?

NB: arguably the effect of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings has been the most complete reversal of ideology in history.  From an expansionist aggressive nation, ruled by divine right, with a military code of 'death before dishonour' (nee surrender), Japan is now a pacifist democratic nation which follows a constitution preventing it from starting a war.

[StratComm]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but do we now have three simultaneous TrashMan vs. HLP arguments going on at once?

Oh, yeah.  This is general, but I'm saying it anyway.  Please stop second guessing events of a half-century ago from a modern perspective.  Technology, values, our needs, and our understanding of particle physics have changed with the times, and the decisions we as people and as nations make are a direct result of those things.  The world has seen nothing approaching the scale of the second world war since its closure, thank God, and despite all the people who died in the process I wholeheartedly believe that the way in which it was concluded, not the bomb but the lasting peace between former enemies (less the whole iron curtain thing) has made the world a better place.

[deep_eyes]

AGREED!

[TrashMan]

Let me get a few thigs straight about the war in Croatia.

1. Firstly, I asay alleged crimes becose the accusasons made by hte prosecution are laughable, insubsstantial, and stretched. In any normal court they would never hold out. one would never accuse US of something like thins and get away with it, since it's a powerfull country. We are small, so things like this happen.

2. In theri accusation they are using the term "command responsibility2. that means that if a soldier under your command commited a crime, you are responsilbe, regardless if you kew of what he was ding or not. and hten they go further up the chain of command. and tehy accused EVERY signle general of ours that planned and exectured operation Strom..even our presiefnt.

In theis redicolous way you can accuse Bush and his generals of war crimes if a single american solder coimmited it.

3. There was no firded expulsion. Everyone knew a Croatian offensive was coming. We even dropeed flyers and arned civilians about it. Teh serbsian popuatio that left the area left for 2 resons: - they either fears repreisals or were told by the serbian government/army to move.
You have to know that a large number of serbian population in Croatian territory when the war started formed a so called state "Srpska Krajina" - armed civilains had their own "governemnt" and they attacked croat policeman and drovethe civilinas outr of hte villages. it isthe very governemt of Krajina that ordered a evacuation. Tehre are more then enough document to confirm that.

4. in the bigining we had no air force to speak of nad little to no artillery - serbs held practicly every noteworthy position in hte Yugoslav army so they had practicly all tanks, planes, equipment when the war started. By the end of the war we caputed/aquired more then enough of everything (especiayll artillery). We could have shelled their cities if we wanted to...we didn't.


5. Croats have been around for more than 1300 years. Our army never attacked another, and never crossed our borders not even in retaliation. And during all that time we fought off countless invasions. Without even bombing other cities or killing civilians. and we are still here.

So the simple fact remains - killign of civilians is inherenly, in it's roots evil! Moraly wrong!
It can NEVER, EVER, under no circumstances be justified. Never.


And Aldo, it's not proven that they wouldn't have surrendered. you keep stating that as a fact behind your every word, but it simply isn't.
Unless of course you have complete and total knowledge of thoguhts or everyone in Japan at that time who was making decisions.... and I sencirely doubt that.

As far as POW's go, ever heard of negotiating?

As amatter of fact, do you think it's OK to kill 300000 "enemy" civilians to save 100000 of your soldiers?

@StratComm - me vs. HLP? Since when do you take the right to speak in behalf of all other forums members? Most have not expressed their oppinions in theis thread.
This is allso a cheap way to try to get more support by suggestion I'm a against all.

Oh, and I will second guess whatever I want. Universal moral laws don't change.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Let me get a few thigs straight about the war in Croatia.

1. Firstly, I asay alleged crimes becose the accusasons made by hte prosecution are laughable, insubsstantial, and stretched. In any normal court they would never hold out. one would never accuse US of something like thins and get away with it, since it's a powerfull country. We are small, so things like this happen.

2. In theri accusation they are using the term "command responsibility2. that means that if a soldier under your command commited a crime, you are responsilbe, regardless if you kew of what he was ding or not. and hten they go further up the chain of command. and tehy accused EVERY signle general of ours that planned and exectured operation Strom..even our presiefnt.

In theis redicolous way you can accuse Bush and his generals of war crimes if a single american solder coimmited it.

3. There was no firded expulsion. Everyone knew a Croatian offensive was coming. We even dropeed flyers and arned civilians about it. Teh serbsian popuatio that left the area left for 2 resons: - they either fears repreisals or were told by the serbian government/army to move.
You have to know that a large number of serbian population in Croatian territory when the war started formed a so called state "Srpska Krajina" - armed civilains had their own "governemnt" and they attacked croat policeman and drovethe civilinas outr of hte villages. it isthe very governemt of Krajina that ordered a evacuation. Tehre are more then enough document to confirm that.

4. in the bigining we had no air force to speak of nad little to no artillery - serbs held practicly every noteworthy position in hte Yugoslav army so they had practicly all tanks, planes, equipment when the war started. By the end of the war we caputed/aquired more then enough of everything (especiayll artillery). We could have shelled their cities if we wanted to...we didn't.


5. Croats have been around for more than 1300 years. Our army never attacked another, and never crossed our borders not even in retaliation. And during all that time we fought off countless invasions. Without even bombing other cities or killing civilians. and we are still here.

So the simple fact remains - killign of civilians is inherenly, in it's roots evil! Moraly wrong!
It can NEVER, EVER, under no circumstances be justified. Never.

Then why haven't you condemned invading Germany yet?

(you obviously have no concept of total war, despite how blatantly simple it is, so I'll assume you're just wilfully ignoring the way that WW2 was and had to be fought; when you come up with a better way to destroy an enemy infrastructure that involves vast industrial areas making munitions without bombing, let me know)

RE: 1-5 That's an issue for the courts.  I'm just pointing out using the Yugoslav wars (and Croatia) as an example of 'goodliness' is somewhat flawed when there's these allegations going on.  I understand your perspective will be not to wish to believe in these allegations, but the allegations are there and will be examined by international courts.

However, specifically RE: 4.  I'd guess that Croatia didn't have the realistic capability to launch bombing raids in particular against Serbia during the time prior to fulfilling their strategic objectives.

Oh, and you're wilfully ignoring the meaning of 'command responsibility'; by your opinion, Hitler should be freed of any responsibility for the Holocaust because he wasn't one of the soldiers pulling the chain on the gas chambers.  The purpose of having a definition of command responsibility is firstly to hold the issuer of illegal orders responsible for those orders, and secondly to ensure that a nation (i.e. the command structure) takes responsibility for ensuring its soldiers follow the general rules of warfare (such as the Geneva convention) and are under control.

[q]
And Aldo, it's not proven that they wouldn't have surrendered. you keep stating that as a fact behind your every word, but it simply isn't.
Unless of course you have complete and total knowledge of thoguhts or everyone in Japan at that time who was making decisions.... and I sencirely doubt that.
[/q]

History has a very clear record of the voting taken place in the highest levels of the Japanese cabinet and war council - the men who were making the decisions.  It's been quoted multiple times here.

We have the quotations and testimonies of those in the peace camp  - at the highest level of government - who thanked the bomb for forcing surrender.

I'd say that's pretty damn close to conclusive (as close as you can get within the context of history), regardless of how much you want to ignore it.  Go on, find a single piece of evidence that the cabinet had reached a surrender consensus prior to the nuclear bombs.

[q]
As far as POW's go, ever heard of negotiating?[/q]

With what?  You're not willing to prosecute the war, after all, what can you offer them?

As amatter of fact, do you think it's OK to kill 300000 "enemy" civilians to save 100000 of your soldiers?

To save 600,000 civillians in concentration camps, 100,000 POWs, the tens of thousands of civvies dying weekly in the rest of Asia, and to prevent the likely death of hundreds of thousands or even millions (referencing Okinawa as an example) of both friendly and enemy troops and civillians in the event of an invasion?

Yes.  Absolutely.

Oh, and I will second guess whatever I want. Universal moral laws don't change.

Ever considered that war is inherently immoral anways?  All war?  And any action that is and can be partaken in a war is inherently dangerous?

If war was about morals, they'd never be fought. War is about tactics, and what is necessary to win.  you're making blind assumptions about things - that the Japanese would have surrendered, that precision bombing was possible, that Hiroshima wasn't a military city, etc - all of which are proven by history to be wrong.

The best suggestion you've offered is to run away and let the Japanese be, under the assumption they won't want to fight again.

[karajorma]

Originally posted by TrashMan
And Aldo, it's not proven that they wouldn't have surrendered. you keep stating that as a fact behind your every word, but it simply isn't.

It's not proven that they would have either.

All evidence however points to the fact that they wouldn't. Lets face it people who won't surrender after you drop 2 nukes on them are unlikely to surrender for anything else. That's just common sense.


But the issue of whether they were going to surrender or not is moot anyway. All that matters is whether Truman believed that they would have. I can't see any evidence of that.

[aldo_14]

AFAIK there were probably 5 options available to Truman (italics why IMO they wouldn't have worked 'as well');

(NB: US equates to allies, really)

1/ hope for a Japanese surrender under the status quo, despite their rejection of the Potsdamm declaration
Historical evidence supports the belief that the Japanese were not willing to surrender under the conditions of 1945 pre-bombing, and in fact wanted the anticipated US invasion in order to inflict heavy casualties which would allow them at the very least a better bargaining position.

The Us had no reason to believe the Japanese wanted to surrender.

2/ use the newly developed nuclear bomb to threaten the Japanese by dropping it on an uninhabited, tactically insiginificant area.
This would have been a waste of a weapon - of which only 2 existed - which was intended as a 'war-ender'.  The US had to work on the assumption that the Japanese wouldn't surrender anyways and continue to target tactical areas.

This option is probably the most viable of all 4 alternatives IMO, but was militarily /tactically unwise. For one thing, the Japanese might have assumed the US didn't have the guts to use the bomb on populated areas, or perhaps even chose to increase their AAF cover in defense instead.  It's worth noting the use of the bombs was followed up by extensive US propaganda campaigns; I'm not sure such a campaign would be as effective if the bomb had been deployed in a remote region where the damage would be less visible (and, sadly, as horrific).

 It is true that the US wanted to evaluate the effect of a nuclear weapon, however that was not their reason for selecting targets (it's also why they decided against Kyoto).  IMO the decision criteria for using atomic weapons was not as a 'test', but for tactical military purposes.  I believe this is backed up by the documents created by the targeting committee.

3/the US could have invaded Japan under Operation Downfall
US military estimates put casualty rates anywhere from the hundred thousand to million rate.  There would be at least 100,000 POWs executed on event of invasion.

For an exemplar, the battle of Okinawa had an estimated 18-19,000 US troops dead, 76,000 Japanese dead and 107,000 civillians dead or captured.


4/ The US could have opted for a blockade, continuing Operation Starvation and also commencing strikes on the Japanese railway infrastructure
All indications are that this would have killed more people than the nuclear bombings; I've seen estimates of 5-10 million by the likely end of the war, depending on when that war is calculated as.  It would have worked, but only killing a vast amount of people

5/ Only using conventional bombing (presumably on targets beyond those hit by atomic blasts, and continuing bombing across a prolonged war)

Firstly, this is less likely to lead to surrender as quickly as the atomic bombs; the Japanese had after all endured raids for a fair while come 1945. Whilst they would probably have been forced to surrender eventually, the atomic bombs provided a demonstration of the US' ability to completely annihilate Japan from the air; conventional bombing  can be seen as a natural tactic of weakening before invasion, and thus is less likely to pose the immediate dire threat of nuclear weapons.

I think it's hard to estimate the psychological effect of a single nuclear bomb which can be carried by one aircraft compared to concentrated conventional bombing raids.

Secondly, this is by no means a less destructive or damaging alternative.  Allied bombing raids in both fronts were capable of killing similar numbers to the casualties attributed to the atomic bomb blasts.  Dresden and the firebombing of Tokyo being an example.


And the odd option 6;
6/ Retreating and leaving the Japanese alone
Japan still held territory and prisoners; there was no guarentee they would not rearm and attack surrounding nations - in fact, given the code of honour followed by the military, it was very likely they would.  Perhaps in decades rather than years, but there was no reason to believe Japan would suddenly become pacifist with the same men in charge as that started the war and committed countless war crimes in waging it.

EDIT; added some bold tags for clarity.  Maybe I need to set my monitor at a lower res....

[TrashMan]

Originally posted by aldo_14
RE: 1-5 That's an issue for the courts.  I'm just pointing out using the Yugoslav wars (and Croatia) as an example of 'goodliness' is somewhat flawed when there's these allegations going on.  I understand your perspective will be not to wish to believe in these allegations, but the allegations are there and will be examined by international courts.

Assuming you were involved in that war and know exactly what was going on, and you know the accuations are false - then if ANY accusation are made (no matter how redicolous) you are not supposed to feel you were doing the right thnig and that ther were no crimes? You were not supposed to say that then?

However, specifically RE: 4.  I'd guess that Croatia didn't have the realistic capability to launch bombing raids in particular against Serbia during the time prior to fulfilling their strategic objectives.

nope..we ammased lot'sa artillery and planes long before operation storm ever started.

Oh, and you're wilfully ignoring the meaning of 'command responsibility'; by your opinion, Hitler should be freed of any responsibility for the Holocaust because he wasn't one of the soldiers pulling the chain on the gas chambers.  The purpose of having a definition of command responsibility is firstly to hold the issuer of illegal orders responsible for those orders, and secondly to ensure that a nation (i.e. the command structure) takes responsibility for ensuring its soldiers follow the general rules of warfare (such as the Geneva convention) and are under control.

No, you don't undersand what I ment. tehy imply the one in charge is guilty REGARDLESS if any order was issued or not.

you're a general and one of you men (very low in the food chain, you haven't seen the guy in your life) commits a crime. You didn't order himto do so, in fact, you ordered him not to. And you had no idea he was killign people.
you are accused and sent to Haag. And even convicted. Like general Blaškiæ. They sentenced him to 45 years and after 9 years the accusations finally were chrushed by the weight of their own stupidity. tehy didn't say they were wrong - nooo. They found another crime to accuse him and convict him of, and sentanced him to - exactly 9 years (which he allready served) to pretend justice has been done...

To make the long stroy short - as I said before, I condemn ANY killing of civilians - especialyl the droping of the A-bomb, since it was a weapon of mass destruction and it was not needed.

You can't convince me otherwise.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
Assuming you were involved in that war and know exactly what was going on, and you know the accuations are false - then if ANY accusation are made (no matter how redicolous) you are not supposed to feel you were doing the right thnig and that ther were no crimes? You were not supposed to say that then?

How do you know they're false if they haven't been investigated by an independent 3rd party?  Were you a general in the Croatian army during Operation Storm?

How can you know there were no crimes?  By your own statements, if you were a general (i.e. a high ranking officer expected to have knowledge of the entire war) there could be crimes committed you had no knowledge of.

Originally posted by TrashMan
nope..we ammased lot'sa artillery and planes long before operation storm ever started.

I was referring to the war with Serbia (not the seperatists).

Originally posted by TrashMan
No, you don't undersand what I ment. tehy imply the one in charge is guilty REGARDLESS if any order was issued or not.

you're a general and one of you men (very low in the food chain, you haven't seen the guy in your life) commits a crime. You didn't order himto do so, in fact, you ordered him not to. And you had no idea he was killign people.
you are accused and sent to Haag. And even convicted. Like general Blaškiæ. They sentenced him to 45 years and after 9 years the accusations finally were chrushed by the weight of their own stupidity. tehy didn't say they were wrong - nooo. They found another crime to accuse him and convict him of, and sentanced him to - exactly 9 years (which he allready served) to pretend justice has been done...

That's your personal opinion of what happened RE: Blaskic.  The official legal ruling - which I'm more inclined to believe than your likely biased opinion (perfectly understandable - what with national pride and all that) was that a double chain of command existed.  However, it was not new allegations that the 9 year sentence was given for; the appeals panel upheld decisions relating to (lesser responsibility charges) inhumane treatment of POWs, etc.  

This all, however, does not detract from my initial point; that breaches of the Geneva convention had occured in that said war (specifically relating to the destruction of Bosnia Muslim property, wilfull killing or use of human shields).  If you wish to compare the 'ethical' aspects of the Yugoslav civil war (specifically Croatias role) vis-a-vis the Pacific front of WW2, I think it's only worth considering these when claiming the moral high ground.

With reference to Gotovina - and this is a complete divergence from the thread topic, may I add - the charges made are based on the presumption of innocent until proven guilty.  The specificies of the charges will relate to whether Gotovina had knowledge of war crimes committed (as well as whether they were war crimes or not); it's not just about giving orders to commit war crimes, but whether adequate measures were made to prevent or prosecute crimes committed by troops under his command.  Again, as it's an ongoing court case I'm not speculating on guilt or otherwise; just pointing out the allegations made to put your example of the Croatian army in context.

Again, all this is beside the (my) point.  That point being that your example of the Croatian army in said war as being more 'moral' is debatable and possibly illustrates the very nature of war - any war - to be inhuman.

Originally posted by TrashMan
To make the long stroy short - as I said before, I condemn ANY killing of civilians - especialyl the droping of the A-bomb, since it was a weapon of mass destruction and it was not needed.

You can't convince me otherwise.

Perhaps not, but I believe I've (with other peoples posts as well) got sufficient factual evidence to prove my point/s correct, particularly the questions you've avoided, such as the invasion of Germany and exactly how you'd negotiate back POWs and captured territories (where the civillians were being oppressed and subject to atrocities) without being willing to apply any sort of military pressure.

[ChronoReverse]

I still don't see what the difference between destroying a city piece by piece with fire, and destroying it all at once.

If we're going to say that the killing of civilians is wrong, period (and I believe that is so), how is it any different whether it was achieved in 1 minute in the blastwave of nuclear fire or over 48 hours in the heat of incendiary inferno?



There isn't any ambiguity in this.  Obviously what was done was wrong and horrible.  That was World War II.  The very definition of how horrible humans can become.

But within the context of the war, I don't see how it was different from all the other actions.  I only see that it was both a strategically and tactically sound decision.

[TrashMan]

SIGH..

suffice to say I know more about the war in Croatia then you will ever know.. I live here.

Serbian separatist and te seriban army were working together. Tehre was no separate war.

About Blaškiæ - new accusation or just a reduced sentance - they still don't want to admit they were wrong.

And about that chain of command thing - I was not talking about Blaškiæ but in general. And don't get me wrong - I never said there were no crimes commited. Tehre were too many people involved and many of them lost way too much for anyone to belive that.
But those were isolated incidents - there were no orders from high up to cleans area, expell population or kill.

And while the nature of war might be inhuman, the governemtns themselves, ther pople involved should be human.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by TrashMan
SIGH..

suffice to say I know more about the war in Croatia then you will ever know.. I live here.

Serbian separatist and te seriban army were working together. Tehre was no separate war.

About Blaškiæ - new accusation or just a reduced sentance - they still don't want to admit they were wrong.

And about that chain of command thing - I was not talking about Blaškiæ but in general. And don't get me wrong - I never said there were no crimes commited. Tehre were too many people involved and many of them lost way too much for anyone to belive that.
But those were isolated incidents - there were no orders from high up to cleans area, expell population or kill.

And while the nature of war might be inhuman, the governemtns themselves, ther pople involved should be human.

Not wishing to get caught up in a debate about the rights & wrongs of that particular war, but don't you think living in Croatia might slant your perspective somewhat?  After all, a lot of Germans weren't aware of the Holocaust during WW2 (in the sense of the extermination camps), and that was one of the worst incidences of war crimes in history. It's very easy to be blinkered by national pride, especially in a fairly newly formed country; it's not like your media would want to acknowledge Operation Storm as criminal even if it was (as this debate is part of the ongoing ICTY prosecutions), would it?

Certainly Amensty international found issues; http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engeur640022005

I'd regard Operation Storm as a seperate 'war' due to the lack of significant Serbian intervention (they were overstretched in Bosnia IIRC; AFAIK the only material support was one general and 400 retired volunteers) on the behalf of the seperatist Krajina Serbs, bearing in mind Krajina borders Serbia; as it turns out the Croats only had 20 aircraft available for Storm anyways with regards to bombing.    As it turns out I was wrong in assuming there was no use of shelling, anwyays.......

AArtillery was used;  2 Canadian generals (UN observers) have alleged that 2 on-trial Croat generals boasted of their artillery accuracy whilst systematically shelling Knin. (related red cross report; http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/iwpList197/B53458D66A1912D4C1256B66005F370E)

(There is also an allegation of the deliberate shelling of a refugee convoy in  Glina-Dvor road at the end of August 1995, and also reports of systematic destruction of Serbian houses in Knin from the International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights and a US diplomatic official.  A UN official also alleged that houses in Knin had been systematically burned and looted)

I think Knin was also shelled when the Serbians first took over in 1992, as well.

The purpose of chain of command is to bring responsibility to individual commanders for failure to control their troops as well as ordering the commission of war-crimes.  I'd suggest your 'there were no orders' statement to be a matter of assumption, though - that's exactly the sort of thing the ICTY and similar organizations investigate, and which are tested in court.

As for the inhumanity of war; you can't fight a war without getting your hands 'dirty'. That's why it's inhumane by nature.  Unless you care to suggest some alternative (re: Japan & the territories/civillians under their 'control' in 1945) not involving military action?

I'd also suggest that a bombing raid - even one with a nuclear weapon, as carpet bombing was an accepted practice of war in the 40s -  on an enemy logistical and supply centre is different from the forced execution of enemy civillians in this comparison.