Originally posted by TrashMan
I never claimed that. I said that our contry never attacked another and our troopn never corrsed out borders to shell cities in enemy terrotiry.
Now and again civilian die in war as a result of a misplaced granade/proximity to target. Even somtimes when a whacko commander full of vengance orders somethig like that.
But it was never a ordered tactic (fomr high up) to shell the enemy into surrender.
That (intention or chain of command responsibility) is a matter of current legal dispute. Evidence is that there was some form of intentional, systematic destruction of Serbian held property. I would say it's not any better (morally) to destroy houses because they were lived in by a different ethnicity, than it is to attack an enemy nation. Certainly bombing during WW2 had the pretext of destruction infrastructure of enemy nations; what pretext can destroying houses in your own country have beyond deliberate expulsion?
Oh -allmost forgot - I think you said that Japansese were fnatical and redy to fight to the death due to the samurai code of honour?
Well, for your inforamtion samurais were allways few. In WW2 mostly highranking generals and some soldiers followed that code. It ment nothing to the normal populace, but you're makinmg it sound like they were all fanaticl loons.
Yes, they were proably ready to fight to the death during an invasion but that would be couse an enemy way invading THEIR country. If someone would to attck our country you would defend it till the end too.
Firstly, I never implied the Japanese were fanatical loons.
I didn't say they
were Samurais, I said they followed the Samurai or warrior code of Bushido. This was also widespread throughout the military as a code of indoctrination and loyalty to inspire them to fight and sacrifice themselves, culminating in the Kamikaze of course.
The leadership of the military in particular followed this code; this led to defense plans involving the use of human shields, medical orderlys acting as suicide bombers and schoolgirls armed with sharpened bamboo poles.
In 1890 the Japanese education code was adapted to teach only a single sect of the Shinto religion (the state sect; 13 others were driven out). This explicitly stated the Emperor was a god and that there was a duty to spread this belief across the world (marking the beginning of militarism). The military used the cult of Hachiman - the diety of war - to indoctrinate soliders and their families.
(there are, incidentally documented instances of Japanese soldiers in Lubang fighting - with local police - until the mid 1970s)
The education system included indoctrination through government written 'cultural' textbooks, and also included classes in survival (against invasion) training and warfare. Children and school students received military drilling (hand to hand combat, first aid, use of weapons and survival training), and some were entered into the Imperial Japanese Young Federation (a Hitler Youth like organization). Some were also conscripted into the army. Children worked in arms factories.
Censorship and surveillance was intense; citizens were encouraged to take interest in Japanese history and were noted by foreign journalists pre-war for being increasingly xenophobic.
It's worth noting that the Japanese government held - and would have held if not defeated and then reorganzied - the expressed position that Japan was responsible for the 'peace' of all Asia.
And you allso said US had nothing to offer for the POW's?
What about japanese POw's? (as a trade). Or some of Japans territory back? Or falling back of it's troops?
For one thing, the Japanese viewed suicide as preferable to capture; a captured Japanese POW would be effectively worthless to such a militaristic society.
The Field Service Code issued by General Tojo in 1941 gave the following;
"
Do not live in shame as a prisoner. Die, and leave no ignominious crime behind you."
For example, at the end of the battle for Okinawa (which saw heavy civillian resistance against the US) the 2 Japanese generals committed suicide by disembowelling themselves, and their lower officers killed themselves using hand-grenades. Another example is Iwo Jima; of 21,800 Japanese troops, only 200 were taken prisoner.
This did not just extend to soldiers; US troops in Saipan observed civillians (including a mother and her baby) hurling themselves off of cliffs when the US captured the island, rather than be occupied. Similar scenes were seen in, for example, Okinawa. Japanese propaganda painted the Americans as barbarians who had committed terrible atrocities and would rape and kill the women and children, etc.
(this also relates to the previous quoted section)
Also, it's already been pointed out that thousands were still dying in conflicts in Japanese held territory outside the Pacific; by pulling back troops it would be handing the Japanese that territory;by continuing it was leading to civillian deaths as collateral damage.
Furthermore, by surrendering captured territory and withdrawing troops, it would risk handing back the impetus to Japan, as they still held territory in China/Manchuria (and I think also the Phillipines and Polynesia). Japan probably at that point held more territory than pre-war.
If Japan felt no need to surrender under intense carpet / fire bombing and under blockade, why would concessions make it more likely to surrender? Especially pulling back military pressure.
Oh, I made one mistake RE: POWs. Apparently Japan held 300,000 (not 100,000) white slave labourers.
At a slight tangent;
Japanese plans for an invasion including the conscription of a further 2 million men. Defenses at Kyushu included;
200,000 men
Approx 5,000 kamikaze fighters
Baku - suicide missile carried by a bomber.
500 minsubs under construction
57 remaining fleet submarines
Suicide motorboats (17 and 22 foot)
Surviving destroyers prepped for sucide attacks on convoys
Suicide bombers to dive under tanks; these included (as an example) medical orderlies
Well dug in positions on the beach with overlapping fields of far, and supporting bases in caves
(NB: the primary tactic was to attack the ships landing US troops)
Another tangent;
Apparently launching a complete blockade ('ring of steel') around Japan was infeasible due to the logistical requirements of supplying all those ships and aircraft
