When did wars become so intractable and "unwinnable" in nature?
For example, why didn't we see old Nazi officers yelling "HEIL HITLER" immediately before blowing themselves up in Berlin cafes in the 1950s, or Japanese airline pilots screaming "BONZAI FORRA THE EMPERU" and crashing their fully loaded 747s into the ocean in the 1970s?
It seems like wars used to have a very clear beginning, middle and end and then they stopped and now every war is just everybody shooting everybody forever.
when people stopped setting clear goals that were actually realistic
bringing peace to the middle east isnt a goal neither is winning the war on drugs
if iraq was about oil, instead of finding weapons of mass destruction we could have won that. if it was simply fuck em lets steal all the oil theres a goal that one side can actually work on and succeed.
This is something I've often wondered about. You've got a guy who believes, genuinley deep down believes that if you (the opressor) shoot him that he wins a one way ticket to eternal paradise. On top of that he'll be remembered as a hero as he laid down his life for the cause, his family will be viewed as heroes because they gave their son for the cause, and all his mates will be envious of him as he's collecting his seventy two virgins while they're all living in a mud hit eating goat shit on toast three times a day.
If you don't shoot him, he shoots you, so he's the winner. If you do shoot him, as far as he's concerned he wins the the star prize, which kind of means he's still won. How the hell do you defeat people with that kind of mentality?
The Vietnam war conclusively ended with a North Vietnamese victory.
The Korean war, while technically ongoing, ended conclusively with an armistace agreement.
Desert Storm was a decisive NATO victory.
The Bosnian Civil War had a clear end.
The deciding factor in all of this was actually having leaders to negotiate things and people who would actually listen to them when they said "its over, go home". We have gotten so effective at decapitating the command structure of insurgencies that there isn't anyone left to negotiate with.
One of the problems is that decision makers try to fight all or nothing " fight them to unconditional surrender" wars against insurgencies. Like they think if they kill enough of then Allah will blow his brains out in a bunker and all of Iraq will lay down their arms.
It dosent help that most arabs couldnt give a fuck with someone who isnt from the region they have lived in for a millenium thinks.
>For example, why didn't we see old Nazi officers yelling "HEIL HITLER" immediately before blowing themselves up in Berlin cafes in the 1950s
The Nazis tried to set up something like that but failed miserably, mostly because the majority of Germans weren't die hard fanatics in the first place. The officers that weren't killed/captured/killed themselves spent the rest of their life either hiding or downplaying the fuck out of what they did.
>or Japanese airline pilots screaming "BONZAI FORRA THE EMPERU" and crashing their fully loaded 747s into the ocean in the 1970s
Cuz the Allies were smart enough to keep the emperor in power, so as far as the average Jap was concerned their empire was still intact and all the Americans did was just kick out some assholes that were in power. There were some guys the held up inna jungle or some bumfuck islands for decades, but they didn't do anything and were convinced to come back home.
>For example, why didn't we see old Nazi officers yelling "HEIL HITLER" immediately before blowing themselves up in Berlin cafes in the 1950s, or Japanese airline pilots screaming "BONZAI FORRA THE EMPERU" and crashing their fully loaded 747s into the ocean in the 1970s?
Cause those wars were already lost, and deep down, they weren't really that radical.
By those situations, there wasn't anything to fight for anymore.
Well OP believe it or not the idea of a clear, concise victory is largely a Western notion of war. Alexander the Great conquered not by occupying forever, but by forcing the local leadership to give up and sign themselves over. Same with the Romans. On the otherhand you can barely get through a paragraph of Chinese histroy without reading about some warlord or spurned ruler who decided to go Civil War on someone else. The fact is that Western leadership is generally ruled with consent, even at the emperor and king level (See Caligula, Nero, and King Louis XIV as examples of what happens when you are a total shit bag). In many other nations it was far more tribal- the "king" wasn't some ruler with an abstract form of legitimacy who was supposed to be benevolent, he was just some guy who usually got his power by deposing or murdering people. Not only that many "nations" weren't nations at all- they were semi-organized tribes that had no real concept of governance beyond clan/tribe ties.
If you want a comparison that is modern, look at Iraq and Afghanistan. Iraq actually had a functioning, if brutal, government under Saddam. That means people exist who understand the concept of "lets take this issue to court" or "lets have laws regarding land", etc. In Afghanistan that has literally not existed in decades. Even before the Soviet coup the Afghani government basically didn't have power- to the locals the county border is that dried lake bed, and the people across that river there are not to be trusted, because tribe. There are a bewildering amount of ethnic groups and subgroups in Afghanistan compared to Iraq, hence even if one group stops fighting another has no reason to. And since every tribe has their own leader it means you have to negotiate a lot just to get a little in return.
One of the mistakes America made in Iraq was removing bascially the whole Baathist party from power. After we got rid of the middlemen there was no one to actually run the nation.
Because classical empires would actually do the requisite amount of killing to pacify a populace.
Yeah cause anyone can be convinced of anything involving religious beliefs. Take trinitarians for example. There's nothing in the Bible aside from one or two ambiguous phrases and those morons latch onto it as if it's the only thing that matters.
The mentality should die out as living conditions improve. It's easy to sacrifice your life when you live in a mud hut, eat goat shit 3 times a day, all your teeth have rotted out of your mouth and you don't expect to live past 50. When you have the opportunity to improve your conditions, and possibly leave something even better for your family, you're not so willing to die needlessly.
Now if people in a country want to live in the shitty conditions described above, that's their business and we shouldn't waste our time on them under the guise of "muh human rights". If they attack us, the best we can do is strike back and leave them incapable of launching another attack, and repeat this process as many times as necessary until they figure out why attacking us isn't a good idea.
>When did wars become so intractable and "unwinnable" in nature?
*Nuclear weapons prevent any major powers from going all-out against either each other or anyone who is a friend of one of the other powers. The concept of Rules of Engagement, which /k/ hates so much, is the product of this need for moderation in warfare rather than the cause of it.
*Some problems require a political solution rather than a military solution. An insurgency is one of those problems; the military exists to be used against the militaries of other nations rather than COIN. A healthy insurgency that has a large membership and the backing of a plurality of the population like the Yugoslav partisans or the VC is unlikely to be defeated by any realistic occupying force.
*Germany and Japan are exceptions rather than the norm.
In Germany, the Nazis' public narrative constantly invoked such themes as "racial survival," "national destiny," and "sacrifice." In other words, they wholly invested themselves in the war and the outcome of the war, which meant that, when they were defeated, their ideology was also defeated. It also helps that they never had the backing of the conservative and aristocratic elements of German society, who conveniently provided a leadership class in the post-war period that was all too happy to condemn the Nazis to the garbage bin of history.
In Japan, MacArthur's decision to retain the Emperor in order to keep the Communists in check had the effect of forestalling the rise of a serious insurgency. It also helps that the whole "all Japanese are fanatically loyal to the Emperor" thing was more meme than reality; it was only really true as applied to an entire class of people among the junior officers in the Japanese military.
What's went on since WWII hasn't really been the same. Beating Germany and Japan was about fighting against a fairly clear aggressor. Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan were/are more about bringing American beliefs to another place that doesn't really want them. That combined with the long term occupation. Let's say that Germany won WWII, you bet your ass there would be French and British insurgents for many years later. I think the reason why we didn't see such a thing with Japan is because we totally destroyed the country.
>allegedly still exist
Yes, they certainly do. And yes the Jewish led anti-Nazi propaganda IS STILL effective considering how scared people are to read into anything truthful about the war.
If you deny or question anything you're a Nazi and you're chastised.
WW1 was the last proper war where things were settled.
ww2 resulted in Germany being split and occupied till the 1990s. Japan was occupied till the 1970s.
Korea is still occupied and at war.
We left Vietnam instead of occupying it and the North came in two years later and conquered. Though cultural and economic victory took hold later for the USA.
Gulf War and Balkans Wars were sort of victories. Though we still left occupation forces in Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Bosnia, Kosovo.
Turkey invaded Cyprus and got the northern half. Still no end as their are international peacekeepers and a DMZ.
Pull the sort of shit Pershing did in the Phillipines.
Unfortunately war today is supposed to be "humane" so the methods needed to terrorize the terrorist is frowned upon.
Alternatively you fix their jacked up countries and give them educations and they'll figure out on their own that there's better options.
After the Nazi's strength was destroyed, there wasn't a point for most of them to keep fighting. They had lost what they had hoped the world would open their eyes to. Sad that the veterans who still live get to sit back and watch the world crumble. They knew it would turn this direction without them.
Evil prevails. In WW1, WW2, but not WW3. WW3 will hopefully be our undoing.
>When did wars become so intractable and "unwinnable" in nature?
You're confusing conventional wars with COIN operations.
Neither have actually changed all that much.
basically when going into war without a uniform became acceptable.
Uniforms protect the civilian population. you dont shoot at people without uniforms and nobody without a uniform shoots at people that wear one, thats how war is done.
In ye olden times being attacked by people wearing civilian clothes would have been seen as a justification to no longer take any precautions to protect the civilian population so naturally the attackers would be shunned by their own people and taken as responsible for the counter-attack that hits everybody.
All of this of course doesnt work with arabs. They dont see anything wrong with risking their own civil population and their people only blame everybody but their own.
Read "The Utility Of Force" to learn about "war amongst the people".
War for resources has been going on since the beginning of mankind, it boggles my mind when I see hippies shouting no blood for oil, have fun in your modern civilization with no oil faggots.
When the bomb was dropped.
Once we reached a point were, should we ever again fall into total war, the entire planet could conceivably be decimated, wars have been about each side knowing when to quit. Not because they couldn't go another round, but because the level of loss and damage exceeded any reason to continue.
I mean, think about Isis with a pre-industrial mentality; there is no reason that one of the super powers could just evaporate every single one of their strongholds. Aside from the few stragglers who'd remain in first world countries (who'd surely be morally broken to see the full scale of nuclear war), you could kill every last person with the drop of a few bombs and that's it.
Of course that wouldn't actually happen because of the wider political implications, but you know what I mean. If you want to "win" a war these days, you could very easily just kill everyone like we aimed to do in the past.
The Japanese and the Nazis being utterly crushed happened because, until the very end of WWII, the level of destruction wasn't so huge that people could conceptualise EVERYONE on the planet dying.
Hate to use this as a reference of all things, but I really think MGS4 got it right: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUf_8jyxbiM
>How the hell do you defeat people with that kind of mentality?
poisoned blankets, napalm or gas attacks from the air, einsatzgruppen type units on a huge scale? Basically ethnic cleansing, maybe save the babies to be raised in ignorance of their past/brainwashed.
>When did wars become so intractable and "unwinnable" in nature?
Once they expanded beyond tribes of 80-150 people, fighting each other with sharp sticks. So about 7,000-8,000 years.
Good thread OP.
Germany surrendered before the atomic bomb was dropped, they lost through conventional warfare. They surrendered for the same reason any nation would have throughout history, because hey would rather live under defeat and occupation that have their nation completely annihilated through warfare. Nukes have made conventional warfare unwinnable through MAD. Insurgencies in the Middle East are unwinnable because they have no reason to surrender. When given the choice between total annihilation or subjugation they would rather be annihilated, and the west refuses to do that.
He was so close too....
> WW1 being settled
the events after WW1 directly caused WW2
> Germany reforged into another successful first world country
> Japan reforged into another successful first world country
sure it took awhile, but at least everythings settled
we weren't facing insurgencies in those countries
> South Korea reforged into another successful first world country
sure theyre still "at war" but its fucking North Korea
I mean I wouldn't say it was good, but it did have a unifying effect on the SS.
>When did wars become so intractable and "unwinnable" in nature?
"The Chinese general and strategist Sun Tzu, in his The Art of War (6th century BC) or 600 BC to 501 BC, was the earliest to propose the use of guerrilla warfare."
I'm not a /pol/tard, but I do feel that people need to cut the nazi's a bit of slack.
>a unifying effect on the SS
>caused a massive morale problem
>had to give them ludicrous amounts of alcohol so they could deal with their actions
>they wrote to their family members about moral uncertainty regarding their actions
>the final solution was necessary largely because the SS didn't have the stomach to kill women and children
Enjoy you're fantasies you /pol/ack retard, maybe open a book that isn't white nationalist propaganda for once.
>but I do feel that people need to cut the nazi's a bit of slack
Why? Their ideology led the country to ruin and their actions led to the deaths of tens of millions of German men via the war and the rape of millions of German women via the Soviets. People are entirely justified in denouncing them as a bunch of delusional warmongering losers.
The irony is lost on them that the only reason their transpecies gender fluid interplanetary sentiments exist is the coddling that western civilization allows for, even though it was paid for and continues to be paid for with blood and violence on the outside reaches
I also wonder this when people deny the Holocaust and then start talking about how jews secretly run the world and Hitler was actually not that bad of a guy.
I mean.. Shouldn't the Holocaust be the crowning achievement if you think the jews are evil and need to be stopped? If you don't even see anything morally wrong with what "happened" then why go through all those hoops to convince yourself it didn't?
Also this. The Nazis got completely fucked and directly lead to their country being enslaved by the Soviet Union. They pissed the world off badly enough that they put Germany in timeout until the Soviets lost administrative control over the region.
> implying you would hate your "father".
The Mongolian rule was to kill all of them taller than a wagon axle lynch pin, and adopt the children into their own tribe.
Those kids would not remember their birth parents.
>It seems like wars used to have a very clear beginning, middle and end
Poor modern education.
WW1 raged on with Germany, Poland, US, UK, etc invading Russia into the 20s, flooding in weapons, etc.
WW2 raged on with Korea, Vietnam...
Those are the large ones. There were many battles, etc from these so called "beginning, middle, end" wars.
Correction. I think it might be deliberate.
If people think you can win wars quickly and easily, and that's that, then people will be more likely to support wars, or the very least not put up any resistance to it.
There are also practical reasons not to use overwhelming force, be it nuclear, conventional explosives, biological, or chemical. If you use more than a few nukes, or one big one, you get fallout over a huge area, and you make a fairly big area unsuitable for living or farming for generations. If you use biological weapons you run the risk of it breaking out elsewhere or otherwise not going as planned. WWI and Vietnam and Iraq showed us chemical weapons are dicey no matter how advanced we think we are. If you glass the desert (or the more friendly scrubland as is often the case), it becomes even more unusable which causes problems for the locals or new people when they want to rebuild or even just extract oil or minerals. If you glass on a wide scale (say, most of the Middle East), it affects the climate of a region noticeably bigger than where you bombed (like say, the entire Middle East and the Caucasus and most of the -stan countries and much of north Africa and a lot of China and a large proportion of India). If you say fuck it and just send in dudes to shoot everyone you're going to lose a ridiculous amount of personnel and materiel and hurt your ability to defend yourself and attack elsewhere.
Plus, of course, all of those will make a bunch of countries you even more or start disliking you.
If we're talking about wars over oil...
Then the reason Saddam was able to stay in power and fund his regime was because the UN was fucking everything up with its corruption.
Kofi Annan's son was in charge of the Oil for food program which was supposed to allow Iraqi citizens to get access to food without giving Saddam the money to keep himself in power.
When sanctions don't work, the result is war. The UN's corruption and Kofi Annan's poor parenting is to blame.
It turns out that many of the opposition in the Security Council were taking kickbacks, and these documents proving it would not be found until after we invaded.
For those that still are hung up on the WMD. Fear of chemical weapons was the only thing that kept us from invading Baghdad.
Now ask yourself. Is America the only country with spies? So where are the spy reports from other countries watching Iraq? Simple questions that no one asks.
Here's another tidbit for you. Saddam wanted people to still believe he had WMDs because it helped to keep himself from being attacked by the other countries around him. Combine that with the weapons inspectors being locked out for years, the constant Stalinist purges that rooted out insiders and the decline of US intelligence under the Clinton administration and a clusterfuck was bound to happen sooner or later.
The allies killed all the german soldiers in death camps after the war.
And japan and germany had their spirits and history erased, we tore down monuments that were built in honor of fucking roman era battles to destroy the notion of a proud germany.
Nowadays, the only way to stop people with a jihad mentality is to instill absolute fear into them. Mohammed won't be rushing into a crowded area with an AK if just last week, his best friend was publicly disemboweled and tortured. This mindset only responds to the most absolute kind of threat. To defeat these terrorists permanently, you need to either cure them of their delusions by bringing them prosperity or suppress them by making them too afraid to do anything serious. Can't kill the bull but you CAN cut its balls off.
Honestly, as a polack I can understand the arabs pretty well
Even after the Nazis rekt us we organized the largest resistance movement in Europe, some 100,000 strong and they assasinated nazi high-ranking officials even though each such action would mean a 100 civilians lined up and shot.
As a counterpoint though, the communists were utterly successful at disarming and destroying this whole movement and where they couldn't use literal force (as for example with ukrainians in south eastern Poland whom they just loaded onto train cars and shipped out elsewhere shooting those who wouldn't comply) they accomplished by infiltration and betrayal.
There's a lesson for americans here - you would never be allowed to use underhanded measures like these but they are actually proven EFFECTIVE as fuck.
My grandpa was polish cavalry and he sunk his Vis pistol and rifle after the end of the war in a river because if the commies caught you with a gun you were so fucking dead.
He kept a bofors 37mm under a haystack in the barn and we only realized 10 years after his death in 2005 though
>There is no good, only unrealized evil.
The side that threw human beings into ovens and hosted the Bataan death march were the bad guys, in this case.
When the only defense you have is "well you guys are gonna be evil too at some point" you are just acting like a shitty starwars villain.
No that isn't the point.
The point is that both sides committed atrocities, so it is unfair to call anyone "good" in either sense. War is fucked no matter how you look at it.
The American were known to execute Japanese POW's more than they were to take them, the Soviets raped half of continental Europe. It has nothing to do with sounding like a Star-Wars villain, and everything to do with coming to the realization that history is written by the victor in every case, and there is never "good" to come through war.
You are pretty dense aren't you?
The American military was not some infallible force fighting for good. They were political tools plain and simple. Just because the Japanese treated American POW's badly doesn't mean that the American's can logically be called "good" if they are treating POW's poorly.
Do some research, learn of American war crimes.
War should be taken purely as a lesson of what human beings are capable of, not as a rallying point for nationalistic fervor. Do yourself a favor and think outside the box for a little bit, and you will realize that there are no "Good Guys" or "Bad Guys", there are scared young men killing each other on the behalf of their respective political systems. That is all.
>The American were known to execute Japanese POW's more than they were to take them
Imperial Japanese Army herds civilians off the cliffs of Saipan
>Damned murdering Marines.
Japanese wounded conceal hand grenades due to religious prohibition on surrender, US GIs refuse to approach, or occasionally shoot, surrendering Japanese soldiers who won't put their hands in the air and roll over.
> Genocide, I tell you.
>two sides mobilize tens of millions of people for combat
>one side commits large scale atrocities that define their war effort
>one side commits smaller atrocities as a way to counter the other side
>they are morally equivalent
However in reference to the Japanese they would literally rather die than be captured so your bullshit about the Americans committing war crimes against them is laughable.
The Imperial Japanese were some hard core bastards and there are plenty of examples of them attempting breakouts of POW camps and attacking soldiers in human wave attacks.
I think you are the one who needs to read a history book.
On January 26, 1943, the submarine USS Wahoo fired on survivors in lifeboats from the Japanese transport Buyo Maru. Vice Admiral Charles A. Lockwood asserted the survivors were Japanese soldiers who had turned machinegun and rifle fire on the Wahoo after she surfaced, and that such resistance was common in submarine warfare. According to the submarine's executive officer, the fire was intended to force the Japanese soldiers to abandon their boats and none of them were deliberately targeted. Historian Clay Blair stated that the submarine's crew fired first and the shipwrecked survivors returned fire with handguns. The survivors were later determined to have included Allied POWs of the Indian 2nd Battalion, 16th Punjab Regiment, who were being escorted by Japanese Army Forces from the 26th Field Ordnance Depot. Of 1,126 men originally aboard Buyo Maru, 195 Indians and 87 Japanese died, some killed during the torpedoing of the ship and some killed by the shootings afterward.
During and after the Battle of the Bismarck Sea (March 3–5, 1943), U.S. PT boats and Allied aircraft attacked Japanese rescue vessels as well as approximately 1,000 survivors from 8 sunken Japanese troop transport ships. The stated justification was that the Japanese personnel were close to their military destination and would be promptly returned to service in the battle. Many of the Allied aircrew accepted the attacks as necessary, while others were sickened.
American servicemen during the Pacific War sometimes deliberately killed Japanese soldiers who had surrendered, according to Richard Aldrich (Professor of History at Nottingham University). Aldrich published a study of diaries kept by United States and Australian soldiers, wherein it was stated that they sometimes massacred prisoners of war. According to John Dower, in "many instances ... Japanese who did become prisoners were killed on the spot or en route to prison compounds." According to Professor Aldrich, it was common practice for U.S. troops not to take prisoners. His analysis is supported by British historian Niall Ferguson, who also says that, in 1943, "a secret [U.S.] intelligence report noted that only the promise of ice cream and three days leave would ... induce American troops not to kill surrendering Japanese."
Ferguson states such practices played a role in the ratio of Japanese prisoners to dead being 1:100 in late 1944. That same year, efforts were taken by Allied high commanders to suppress "take no prisoners" attitudes among their own personnel (as these were affecting intelligence gathering), and to encourage Japanese soldiers to surrender. Ferguson adds that measures by Allied commanders to improve the ratio of Japanese prisoners to Japanese dead resulted in it reaching 1:7, by mid-1945. Nevertheless, "taking no prisoners" was still "standard practice" among U.S. troops at the Battle of Okinawa, in April–June 1945. Ferguson also suggests that "it was not only the fear of disciplinary action or of dishonor that deterred German and Japanese soldiers from surrendering. More important for most soldiers was the perception that prisoners would be killed by the enemy anyway, and so one might as well fight on."
Ulrich Straus, a U.S. Japanologist, suggests that Allied troops on the front line intensely hated Japanese military personnel and were "not easily persuaded" to take or protect prisoners, as they believed (not entirely incorrectly) that Allied personnel who surrendered got "no mercy" from the Japanese. Allied troops were told that Japanese soldiers were inclined to feign surrender in order to make surprise attacks, a practice which was outlawed by the Hague Convention of 1907. Therefore, according to Straus, "Senior officers opposed the taking of prisoners on the grounds that it needlessly exposed American troops to risks ..." When prisoners nevertheless were taken at Guadalcanal, Army interrogator Captain Burden noted that many times POWs were shot during transport because "it was too much bother to take [them] in".
I bet you believe what your 6th grade teacher taught you. That Hitler's reich was responsible for the deaths occuring in WWII, and that it was all about genocide. What Stalin and the Japanese did to the surrounding communities is truly horrifying.
U.S. historian James J. Weingartner attributes the very low number of Japanese in U.S. prisoner of war compounds to two important factors, namely (1) a Japanese reluctance to surrender, and (2) a widespread American "conviction that the Japanese were 'animals' or 'subhuman' and unworthy of the normal treatment accorded to prisoners of war. The latter reason is supported by Ferguson, who says that "Allied troops often saw the Japanese in the same way that Germans regarded Russians — as Untermenschen" (i.e. "subhuman").
Professor of East Asian Studies and expert on Okinawa, Steve Rabson, said: "I have read many accounts of such rapes in Okinawan newspapers and books, but few people know about them or are willing to talk about them." He notes that plenty of old local books, diaries, articles and other documents refer to rapes by American soldiers of various races and backgrounds. An explanation given for why the US military has no record of any rapes is that few Okinawan women reported abuse, mostly out of fear and embarrassment. According to an Okinawan police spokesman: "Victimized women feel too ashamed to make it public." Those who did report them are believed by historians to have been ignored by the US military police. Many people wondered why it never came to light after the inevitable American-Japanese babies the many women must have given birth to. In interviews, historians and Okinawan elders said that some of those Okinawan women who were raped and did not commit suicide did give birth to biracial children, but that many of them were immediately killed or left behind out of shame, disgust or fearful trauma. More often, however, rape victims underwent crude abortions with the help of village midwives. A large scale effort to determine the possible extent of these crimes has never been conducted. Over five decades after the war had ended, in the late 1990s, the women who were believed to have been raped still overwhelmingly refused to give public statements, instead speaking through relatives and a number of historians and scholars.
>The point is that both sides committed atrocities
>Both sides were equally evil.
Not buying it.
"ach, but you vere zee bad guys too!"
Except we've seen time and again Western grown Muslim men give up the most privileged, pampered lifestyle humans have ever had and join up for some death cult in the Middle East.
"muh poverty and desperation makes terrorist meme" has got to stop. What is making all these well educated, with access to welfare, healthcare, excellent jobs people give all that up to get droned in some shithole desert?
They all have one thing in common.
There is substantial evidence that the US had at least some knowledge of what was going on. Samuel Saxton, a retired captain, explained that the American veterans and witnesses may have intentionally kept the rape a secret, largely out of shame: "It would be unfair for the public to get the impression that we were all a bunch of rapists after we worked so hard to serve our country." Military officials formally denied the mass rapes, and all surviving related veterans refused the New York Times' request for an interview. Masaie Ishihara, a sociology professor, supports this: "There is a lot of historical amnesia out there, many people don't want to acknowledge what really happened." Author George Feifer noted in his book Tennozan: The Battle of Okinawa and the Atomic Bomb, that by 1946 there had been fewer than 10 reported cases of rape in Okinawa. He explained it was "partly because of shame and disgrace, partly because Americans were victors and occupiers. In all there were probably thousands of incidents, but the victims' silence kept rape another dirty secret of the campaign."
Some other authors have noted that Japanese civilians "were often surprised at the comparatively humane treatment they received from the American enemy." According to Islands of Discontent: Okinawan Responses to Japanese and American Power by Mark Selden, the Americans "did not pursue a policy of torture, rape, and murder of civilians as Japanese military officials had warned."
There were also 1,336 reported rapes during the first 10 days of the occupation of Kanagawa prefecture after the Japanese surrender.
That is the point I have been making the entire time. To label one side good and another bad is silly. Both sides are equally guilty of evil, we view them differently because one side will inevitably lose.
Not the guy to whom you're replying, but
>what is false equivalency
The Japanese killed thousands of American servicemen after attacking the United States unprovoked and without a declaration of war. Their war crimes were widespread, systematic, and endorsed by official policies enacted by the Japanese military like the Three Alls in China.
By contrast, American war crimes were extralegal and comparatively rare. While there is no question that America did some morally questionable things like killing POWs out of racism/as reprisals or tens of thousands of civilians via strategic firebombing in both Dresden and Tokyo, it is a complete joke to pretend that Japan has moral parity in this case.
The war would not even have happened in the first place were it not for their occupation of China and the attack on Pearl Harbor.
>When did wars become so intractable and "unwinnable" in nature?
The Iraq War lasted like 3 months and we blew them the fuck out, the entire standing army of Iraq was defeated and on the run, the government collapsed and went into hiding and Saddam was captured, put on trial for his crimes and executed. The actual war went well, we easily won and the war was over in record time.
The whole occupation afterward was what went to poorly.
Eisom Hower had death camps, the French german pows had 500,000 deaths after the war. The Americans systemically starved germans by taking abundant amounts of crops "for the soldiers" while german women and children starved.
>The Americans systemically starved germans by taking abundant amounts of crops "for the soldiers" while german women and children starved.
The US provided food aid to Germany from December of 1945 to March of 1950.
Yes, the average German diet from VE day to December 1945 was just a little over 1000 calories, and US policy was to get food aid to other countries before Germany, but the US forces were not stealing food from the Germans, they were 100% supported by their own logistics. Germany was starving because their crops had been ruined by armies marching and fighting on top of them.
"Other Losses" has been firmly debunked since 1990.
The distinct and damning difference between Nazi/Soviet and Western "war crimes" is that the atrocities that the Nazis and Soviets committed were functions of the state's policy - extending beyond just times of war. The Nazis were busy brutalizing jews, locking up dissonants and even purging their ranks well before WW2 started. Likewise, as the neonazi fucks will gladly point out as moral equivalence, the Soviets were starving their citizens and throwing people in Gulag for even minor infractions. So basically, the US/UK bombing the hell out of Germany and Japan and locking up some Japanese Americans (in incomparably more humane camps) are shit excuses for "moral equivalence" considering what state ideology and policy is capable of. Rallying up your people to hate a group, deprive group of any rights, and later invade other countries and start massacring said group with help of the locals (get fucked Ukraine, collaborator scum) is a level of reprehensibility that is why the Nazis are considered a paradigm of evil. The act of genocide isn't new; its doing it as a modern, first world country that prides itself as being civilized that makes it especially bad - and apparently unfathomable to this day.
That the Nazis get demonized unfairly while the Soviets get slack is another shit revisionist meme. From 1945 to 1991 the West was at defacto war with the Soviets precisely because we knew how evil they were. Only reason we didn't liberate eastern Europe was because a)Nukes b)The USSR is really really big and c)We were sick of war. We all knew how bad Stalin was - but Hitler was closer to killing off our friends - and Hitler and his ideology was at the time what ISIS is to us now.
>tl;dr Comparing war crimes is stupid - we should be examining the atrocities the state committed as a function of being rather than a consequence of war. You don't have to be a dirty commie lover to have a reason to hate Nazis
Is it just me or has /k/ gotten more and more retarded ever since /his/ was formed and successfully resisted the /pol/io? All the intelligent posters /k/ have made aliyah to /his/rael it seems, leaving the /pol/ cancer free to shit up /k/ unhindered.
these aren't wars in the classic sense. they are police actions and government dick swinging using ground troops and spec ops like a game of chess. In those scenarios war isn't Cleary "winnable" like the wars we're used to so they drag on and on. Go crack open a history book, nations have had this problem forever, they get bigheaded,over extend their power and start small proxy fights they cant handle. The last war we had was the gulf war, we need to stop sticking out noses in places we don't belong and have no real value
kill him anyway, let him and his god sort out the rest
This really does open an interesting philosophical discussion
Is it better to kill someone in an attempt to force a belief on them or to kill them in an attempt to take their stuff?
Is forcing an ideology not moraly reprehensible?
Wars are winnable. Just ask Hajj Radwan.
It's just that governments have a tough time with NGO opponents, just as NGO opponents have a tough time implementing geo-political agendas.
With the same mentality. See you in Valhalla brothers!
You also fuck their shit up beyond belief. If their sons being fanatics are the problem then they shall have no more sons. It's either pussyfoot around or fucking devastate them. What do you think they aim to do to us?
Holy shit this was a piss poor excuse for a post. Not only do you have no citations for any of the actual claims, it actually shows that the Americans were restrained in their actions! The listed killed are a 5th of the total on the original complement of the ship and it also doesn't show how many Japanese and Indians were killed from what causes.
Again you really need to read what you are posting.
>give Soviets supplies
>they kill Germans
Don't you have something better to do than try to detract from the greatness of your own society. Because there's more than enough to go around.
Again this is another post which doesn't have any clear citations. In the initial part of the post it states that the US PT boats and Allied aircraft attacked Japanese rescue vehicles and the 1000 survivors of 8 sunken Japanese troop ships. All of which are complete legitimate targets.
The second part is about a guy doing research on a bunch of diaries. What kind of numbers are we talking about here? Did he read like 2 diaries and somebody said something along the lines of "shot a japanese soldier when he attacked me."
Very poor research.
This whole post just proves my point that the Japanese were treated differently to the Germans because the Japanese would oftentimes take no prisoners and summarily execute anybody they thought they could get away with.
The Japanese literally got what they deserved.
>So basically, the US/UK bombing the hell out of Germany and Japan
>considering what state ideology and policy is capable of
>Rallying up your people to hate a group
terror bombings and progaganda were exactly that
And it gets even more fucked up when you think about the british-polish pact. People always say how the italians were shitty allies in ww2 for the germans but I don't think you could find worse "allies" than the brits from a polish pov.
>get everyone id. Ie fingerprints, dna, etc
>they would have to do it if they want any government services
>somebody blows themselves up or attacks and gets killed, find out who they are using your database. If they aren't in there, you should have enough information to determine at least which tribe they belong to
>start killing everyone in the tribe that you can. Surround the town so they can't escape.
Really? Because to me it seems like /k/ has been going left/libertarian slowly over time.
>"Fearing a Nazi uprising, U.S. occupation forces were under strict orders not to share their food with the German population, and this also applied to their wives when they arrived later in the occupation. The women were under orders not to allow their German maids to get hold of any leftovers; "the food was to be destroyed or made inedible"
Eugene Davidson The Death and Life of Germany p.85 University of Missouri Press, 1999
>"starvation produced a 40 percent increase in mortality among Germans over 70."
The President's Economic Mission to Germany and Austria, No. 1, pg. 8
"The German food situation became worst during the very cold winter of 1946–47, when German calorie intake ranged from 1,000 to 1,500 calories per day... Average adult calorie intake in the U.S was 3,200–3,300, in the UK 2,900 and in the U.S. Army 4,000."
"Neither the Italians nor the Dutch could sell the vegetables that they had previously sold in Germany, with the consequence that the Dutch had to destroy considerable proportions of their crop. Denmark offered 150 tons of lard a month; Turkey offered hazelnuts; Norway offered fish and fish oil; Sweden offered considerable amounts of fats. The Allies were however not willing to let the Germans trade."
Nicholas Balabkins, Germany Under Direct Controls: Economic Aspects of Industrial Disarmament 1945–1948, Rutgers University Press, 1964 p. 125
The German infant mortality rate was twice that of other nations in Western Europe until the close of 1948.
Richard Dominic Wiggers pg. 286
Balabkins also notes that the distributed food rations were of poor composition and "considerably below minimum nutrition standards"; without access to additional food from alternative sources recipients would eventually fall prey to starvation.
Balabkins,Germany Under Direct Controls: Economic Aspects of Industrial Disarmament, pp. 18
Economic Aspects of Industrial Disarmament, pp. 102,107,108
I could go on but basically the allies committed a nation wide war crime over half a decade. Doing this has made me realize how fucking terrible it is to find old sources so I'll point you fags in the right direction to realize how terrible the allies were
>forced german labor post ww2
>rapes in Germany during ww2
>deaths in allied pow camps during and after ww2
>start a war
>whine that people aren't nice to you
>complain about the negative things the allies did without taking a second to think about the positive things they did
I'm sorry, were you expecting somebody to take you seriously?
theres only "goals"
making open ended existential ones like "just kill every commie you can find" and "overthrow a dictatorship in a ridiculous 2 minutes to armageddon region filled with inbred backwoods religious lunatics that make the movie deliverance look like mary fuckin poppins by comparison, and throw money at the issue of rebuilding the area until it just "fixes itself" somehow while playing golf and bragging about fiscal responsibility"
nation building requires actual nation building
a functional system of law and order and a prussian style school system to indoctrinate everyone, not hiring a bunch of yokels off the street and calling them an army
I believe the axis set the precedent on the matter of attacking civilian population centers as something worth pursuing during the war, in some cases to their detriment. Look at the Battle of Britain where the Luftwaffe shifted from attacking airbases to bombing cities and failed to destroy the RAF as a consequence.
Every example of allied war crimes and atrocities can used to justify "well they was bad too! GERMANY/JAPAN DINDU NUFFIN" can be easily countered by atrocities far more brutal, widespread, larger, more common, higher in frequency, and effecting larger numbers of people and as a general rule these acts were first committed by the axis forces.
Look at civilian deaths in China, Russia, Eastern Europe, Colonial Asia, generally anywhere the axis occupied... Look at medical experimentation. Look at the treatment of prisoners, the frequency of executions and/or toruture of prisoners under the axis/allies. Look at who first committed purposeful large scale bombings of civilians. Look at who imitated conflicts as the agressor and with surprise attacks.
So either the axis was the antagonist in the conflict or there were no good guys and history was written by the winners and so either way fuck you your bombed/nuked cities, raped women, and devasted and broken national spirits are nothing to feel bad about.
>How the hell do you defeat people with that kind of mentality?
By realizing that this whole thing is a fiction and that these shit-eating mudfaggots are still afraid to die.
This whole "haha u cant win b/cuz martyrs!!!" shit is as empty as the kamikaze garbage from WW2.
....has there even been actual an official death toll?
I never really looked into the matter, but I know people were tracked with a document system using an IBM punchcard database, which is pretty high tech for the time
there should be a definitive record somewhere, unless the germans burned them all to avoid warcrimes after VE day or some crazy bullshit
If I recall correctly, the punchcard system puts the toll somewhere around 4 million, but there were a lot of Einsattgruppen, collaborating regimes, and other things that weren't under that umbrella.
The initial bombing of metro London was by error, the bombers had been trying for the port facility.
In retaliation, the British bombed Hanover, intentionally. That strike created pressure on Goering to change strategy, since it appeared clear that the campaign to destroy the RAF was falling.
A couple weeks later and there were no more airfield attacks and the Blitz was on.
It's not as cut and dried as high school history makes it sound.
>War for resources has been going on since the beginning of mankind, it boggles my mind when I see hippies shouting no blood for oil, have fun in your modern civilization with no oil faggots.
And yet, ironically, according to capitalist principles, trading for resources is a better option than war.
So... get fucked commie.
Debate debate debate. No, fuck every one and everything in your way or against your opinion/beliefs. The way it has been, the way it always shall be. It has always and always will be the habbening, ready your nuggets and gather your family, for the time of murder has always, and always will be, among us.
Most of the records were captured by the Soviets, and they made conflicting claims about what they said, and then destroyed them. Typical Jewish diaspora claims conflate the highest claimed total dead with Jews dead, or each camp entrant as a camp death (most of the camps were work camps, many people survived).
If we take the middle of the road claims, 4 million people were recorded as killed in the camps, 1.5 million Soviets (some of whom may be Jews), 1 million gypsies, homosexuals, German Communists, Jehovah's witnesses, and other minority groups, and 1.5 million civilian Jews. Somewhere around another half a million Jews died outside the camps, but so did 5 million Polish, Ukranian, and Russian partisans.
Probably another half a million camp prisoners died of malnutrition effects after the camps were abandoned by the retreating German army.
Basically to get to even half of the "much 6 million" you have to assume that everyone who starved in a camp as Germany collapsed was a Jew and 1/3 of the Soviet camp deaths was a Russian Jew.
There weren't 6 million Jews in Europe in 1939.
It's not like the truth isn't bad enough, I don't see why they feel the need to exaggerate.
Only that guy who was married really qualifies as well educated with access to etc., etc., And I guess maybe that guy on the army base.
But look at the dumbass who tried to rush Parliament in Canada last year. He was a neckbeard with mental issues. You can go "muh muslims" all you want, but it's clear that most of these people are societal rejects, or have actual mental issues.
Because we are fighting widespread ideology. When we fought Nazis the only people we had to fight were Nazi soldiers. Then after that, Nazis were no longer a real threat. Now we fight an entire ideology that is shared by people all over the region. And it's compounding because when we kill some extremist, their children hold a grudge and become brainwashed extremists themselves.
>tl;dr War stopped being winnable since we stopped fighting organized forces and instead starting fighting ideology
Also all the red tape. We would win the War on Terror if we just carpet bombed every fucking village and town in the middle east until mudslimes were scared to even look up for fear of American planes flying over
I would guess that killing somebody to steal their stuff is better than killing them for ideology.
Killing to steal implies that there's a tangible benefit for the murderous party.
Killing to force ideology is like a physical manifestation of failure. You've failed to grow your ideological base, with the further implication that your ideology is so shitty that people would rather die than convert.
When we lost the will to fight, OP. When we lost the God damned will TO FUCKING WIN!!!
I support this theory. Change in tactics. We used to capture leadership and ransom them back after negotiation, having them take their minions away with them. Nowadays we dismantle any leadership structure we can find via drone strikes, SF missions or any other form of cloak and dagger bullshit resulting in their death we can think of. Less rational men fill their slots from the ranks of minions until you've got retarded extremists who've seen so many leaders die that they hAve already accepted their fate in charge. Our tactics are more effective at ending cohesive war fast and with less damage to population and infrastructure but it breeds insurgency
because "the war on terror" is more similar to the british empire policing it's colonial holdings, only we forgot the "when a region rebels go in and execute every military age male and give the land to their tribal enemies as a smiley face sticker for being loyal to queen and country" part of dealing with an insurgency.
>inb4 but das a war crime ;_;
they're not civilians they're nonuniformed combatants, on the same level as spy, and can be summarily executed ;)
Oh, you foolish, foolish man.
I love war as much as the next, but you're deluded if you think it's possible to wage war against any non-political entity in most part of the middle east. You would literally have to kill every man, woman, and child, because that's what it would take. Better solution, build better fucking defenses and stop taking refugees.
Current Armyfag here, when people like this: who think total war concepts apply to counter-insurgency, started leading companies and battalions without completing the actual objectives required to win. When people who think COIN is a numbers game started leading at brigade and division levels started strategizing troop movements.
please believe me when I say no board I've been to the last few months has been cured of /pol/io, it's just a matter of degrees
/his/ has more of it than most, it's just usually not dominating threads like it does in some places
If this didn't reach critical mass it would work. The problem with this, as well as the problem with modern war is dissemination of information.
Newspapers were easy to control: only so much space in the column, any statements could be written ahead of time and released to the press.
Radio is similar: you could hear gunshots and bombs, the occasional yell, and the reporter trying to tell you how bad it was. But there was still cognitive dissonance, it still wasn't real for civilians.
Then television came along. The Vietnam war was broadcast right into peoples living rooms. The reality of the horrors of war proved to be distasteful, this sparked the goddamn hippies in the US and western Europe. Television changed the face of warfare forever by making it visible.