Why did US think Pearl Harbor attack so dirty?

[JOE BRENNAN]

 

As worse as Nanking? in the 20th century?

 

Because the romans sacked entire towns we can justify the Holocaust? Really?

I see four basic possible moral approaches:

1. A total bullsh*t one which condemns atrocities by 'them', because well they're them, and justifies, or even *calls for* atrocities by 'us', because well we're us. It's voiced on this forum not so rarely, 'go Roman', but same people will condemn the Japanese.

2. The non hypocritical version of 1. which just says there isn't any morality. But even so the honestly amoral 'go Roman' fans often propose atrocities under the 'practical' argument of 'putting the fear of God into enemies' to shorten war. But it didn't work in China, and the episodes of disgusting individual sadism *always* happen if you make uncivlized behavior a policy

3. A view that there's no absolute morality over time, but there is potential for moral progress. It's not even a matter of anachronistically comparing the Vikings to the Japanese. The Japanese themselves had accepted modern standards of behavior in war in the late 19th-early 20th century, but then regressed by the 1930's.

4. A view that there is an absolute morality and atrocities in war violate it, whenever they may have occurred.

 

But also, since these kind of discussions are always so political and long have been, underlying facts have tended to get distorted. So, the Japanese murdered a large number of civilians in the 1937-45 war, and caused the deaths of literally millions through avoidable interruption of the struggle for survival of Chinese peasants. That's usually what happened in wars, but Japan chose to start the war in China. There's no plausible argument they were 'forced' into that war, which is what tends to undermine arguments they were 'forced' into the Pacific War by Allied economic actions, when those were intended to get them to desist in China. That said, the number of civilians murdered at Nanking was probably far below the 200k+ the Chinese insist on, and accounts of the specifics sometimes contain elements of Chinese propaganda. Iris Chang's book was a notorious example, but is still often quoted.

 

And, US misbehavior in the Philippine War has long been blown out of proportion by leftist revisionist historians and anti-Americans to whom their arguments naturally appeal. Habitual US misbehavior was limited to particular relatively small areas. The numbers of civilians murdered was small not only on the scale of Japanese actions in China but of Japanese actions in the Philippines in 1944-45.

 

Joe

Edited December 10, 2011 by JOE BRENNAN

[Sardaukar]

If you have no "objective" viewpoint of your own with which to compare, how can you possibly say other viewpoints are not objective?

Anyone's viewpoint is by default "subjective", not "objective" .

[DougRichards]

Lionel, can we march you 100 miles, with no food and minimal water and then see what your bias is?

 

Quote

 

Other European powers did as much and as bad if not worse at various times in their empires. Is it surprising that the Japanese felt this was the way to undertake imperial expansion?

 

========

 

 

 

As worse as Nanking? in the 20th century?

 

 

 

Belgium Congo 1885-1908

[ickysdad]

Myself I say apply some sort of statue of limitations on excusing bad behavior. IMHO the fact that nations tried to establish certain conventions/treaties regulating such behavior takes the excuse away from nations involved in 20th century warfare, in fact Japan ,as Jbren pointed out, observed certain rules in the early part of the century but then reverted back to more atrocious type behavior.

Edited December 11, 2011 by ickysdad

[Nobu]

I've just read on Wikipedia that at end of World War 2, Japan released a grand total of 56 Chinese POWs.

 

That...is staggering.

[JOE BRENNAN]

I am unsure whether that is true or not as I know little about the US war in the Philippines at the turn of the 20th century but isn't that the normal sort of rationalisation one hears all the time from the perpetrators of massacre and atrocity? Perhaps the term has been used far too often in such situations?

A starting point if interested would be "The Philippine War" by Brian McAllister Linn. It's a bit dry but very detailed about the campaigns on various islands; the ones which were relatively quickly concluded w/ little impact on civilians (most) and the ones where the war dragged on to 1902 and in a few places involved major impact on civilians. And if you're not interested, why comment on it specifically?

 

But in general, there's not just 'the truth' and 'rationalizers trying to understate crimes'. There are also plenty of people with a hard on for the US and eager to take it down a notch at any opportunity, and/or rationalize larger atrocities in their own countries' histories by exaggerating US, anglo-saxon, etc. ones; or to in general establish a principal of moral equality of all civlizations in history, which just isn't the case.

 

Joe

Edited December 11, 2011 by JOE BRENNAN

[Rich]

I disagree. As I have stated several times already, I do not agree with the Japanese decision to attack the United States but I feel it behooves us to consider their viewpoint if we are to understand their decision. Perhaps its better to state it from their point of view rather than automatically reject it out of hand as you appear to. You appear to mistake explanation for support.

 

I agree with you completely and for my part at least try to be aware of my subjective knee-jerk biases. The problem I believe is that no one is self-aware enough - unless they are the reincarnation of the Buddha - to always know when their subjective biases are taking over. That is one reason why I try to stay away from opinion-based discussions and stick with analytical arguments, which can be more objectively reasoned. Unfortunately, there are many other inhabitants of the aether that quite obviously do not make any effort at all in that regard as they pursue their various agendas.

 

However, in any case the question was not "what was the justification by the Japanese for the attack based upon their subjective point of view", but, rather, "why did [the] US think [the] Pearl Harbor attack [was] so dirty?" Which is a question based upon the subjective point of view of the average US citizen - not the Japanese rationale for the attack or any other manufactured ex post facto claim of "American propaganda" or "US Presidential scheming". That question was actually answered long ago in this thread, but has been denied repeatedly by others claiming that the subjective point of view of everyone else but the Americans is actually more relevent in answering the question. For me, from an analytical and objective point of view, the notion that the answer to the "why" should exclude the opinion, subjective or otherwise, of those to whom the question applied, is simple obfuscation - a red herring of a strawman argument.

 

I further note that when certain other posters have been asked to objectively substantiate their own subjective POV they suddenly clam up...I am still waiting for an objective analysis of the "brilliance" of the Japanese plan for the Pearl Harbor operation that does not depend on pointing at the outcome and mewling "see what the results were - the planning must have been brilliant". Which happens to be a wonderful example of wantonly subjective cart-before-the-horse reasoning.

 

Cheers!

[istvan47]

As I have stated, I am not defending, merely exploring and attempting to understand the Japanese point of view. You appear to be trying to paint me into the role of a defender of the Japanese. This appears to be a common problem on the internet. People seem unable to disassociate the poster from the point of view they are attempting to explain.

 

I agree for sure.

[Heirophant]

IMHO, the Pearl Harbor attack, though it was naked aggression, wasn't actually "despicable". It wasn't the attack that was dirty, it was the attackers' behavior afterwards.

 

Yes, Britain, France, Wilhelmine Germany, and the United States were imperialists, just like Japan. In that sense, Japan wanted to expand and rule an empire like everyone else. And sure enough, ALL the above nations were VERY racist and, in Britain's case, caste-/class-conscious as well.

 

But the Nazi Germans and the Imperial Japanese took their Imperialism and Racism to an extreme.

 

It's like saying that not all slave-owners are alike. Some slave-owners, though not bothered by the whole idea of slavery, tried to be gentler with their property. They fed them, housed them, maybe educated some of them. In short, these owners treated their slaves humanely. As long as the slaves knew their place (below their masters), the owners weren't TOO cruel. The "White Man's Burden", "Mission L' Civilisatrice", "Manifest Destiny" and all that.

 

These humane slave-holders, decent masters, were your traditional 19th-century imperialists.

 

But other slave-holders were truly inhumanly brutal and ruthless. Their property would be treated as objects, to be used up, abused, tortured and exterminated for any reason they saw fit, and often for no reason at all. To be a slave of such masters could not begin to compare with the lives of slaves under more decent sorts (see above).

 

These vicious slave-holders were your 20th-century Nazis and Imperial Japanese empire builders.

 

So while there may be "moral equivalence" between Imperial Japan's and Britain's/France's/America's wars of expansion and aggression, the behavior of Japan towards conquered peoples was several notches more "despicable" and "detestable".

 

Basically, Japan conquered and started wars for no moral reason. Britain, France and America conquered and started wars for no moral reason.

 

But we were afterwards moderate slave-masters - and Japan and Nazi Germany were very brutal ones. There's your difference, I would think. A difference perhaps not in kind, but surely in degree.

Edited December 11, 2011 by Heirophant

[Heirophant]

I've just read on Wikipedia that at end of World War 2, Japan released a grand total of 56 Chinese POWs.

 

That...is staggering.

 

This may reflect a number of factors. We can't say if it was poor treatment in Japanese prison camps.

 

It could be that Japanese troops simply refused to accept Chinese surrenders, and killed them on the spot for the most part.

[istvan47]

But in general, there's not just 'the truth' and 'rationalizers trying to understate crimes'. There are also plenty of people with a hard on for the US and eager to take it down a notch at any opportunity, and/or rationalize larger atrocities in their own countries' histories by exaggerating US, anglo-saxon, etc. ones; or to in general establish a principal of moral equality of all civlizations in history, which just isn't the case.

 

Joe

 

Well this seems to be the argument for Italì as well. We 'brava gente' gassed a lot of Lybians and Ethiops without any care (ok spanish did the same in north africa). When Mrs. Graziani was badly wounded in Ethiopia (1938?) there was a brutal repression with thousands killed. This while in Italì radio broadcasted 'faccetta nera/bell'abissina'. Propaganda is a nasty beast everywhere, but italians excelled in picturing themselves as 'brava gente' (good fellas) while making any crime immaginable. A dissociating thinking that i always found highly hipocrital. Even now we don't make wars, just 'peace keeping' ecc.

 

But sure, seeing what happened in China or with firebombings, lagers ecc, any italian action seems to be almost a joke. Apparently italians had a inferior complex vs british/US and this maybe limited crimes and atrocities. British were gallant as well, atleast in Mediterranean there was a sort of 'sportive thinking' about the battles and the POW handling. Malta and Sicily even had a telephone calling daily to discuss about POWs and losses (until Germans came). Rommel was not a nazist and apparently had not any inclination to make bloody warcrimes. So the game was hard, but 'fair'. Atleast until the massive bombing campaigns over Italì (Rome, Milan, Cassin ecc. ecc.) that really weren't 'fair' at all. Then the war came really bad and there were the anti-partisan operation with massive civilian killings made by nazi-fascists (Marzabotto, S.Angelo).

 

I further note that when certain other posters have been asked to objectively substantiate their own subjective POV they suddenly clam up...I am still waiting for an objective analysis of the "brilliance" of the Japanese plan for the Pearl Harbor operation that does not depend on pointing at the outcome and mewling "see what the results were - the planning must have been brilliant". Which happens to be a wonderful example of wantonly subjective cart-before-the-horse reasoning.

 

Cheers!

 

..while i still waiting for a reason that explains how 30' warning (n.w: not a radar contact, but just the news about japan declarations) could have changed massively the things. The first two pilots (Welch) that took off with P-40s run with a car for 25 km and then grab two fighter still untouched but left without 12.7 mm, as the airbase had not such ammunitions. what kind of difference were 30 minuts, then? You cannot improvise a Fighter Command like the RAF

 

Also, i still wonder how japans had to do to archivie a total success or a greatly executed plan. In a real world, what happened was a eclatant success anyway, and i wonder how someone not consider it as such. US felt themselves heavily whipped, japans were very happy, so why discount this action?

Edited December 11, 2011 by istvan47

[ickysdad]

istvan,

 

You just don't get it do you? The 30 minute warning meme is not a red herring that you make it out to be. The fact that men would have been at action stations,ships sealed up , more AA and ect and ect would have helped tremendously furthermore if any extra fighters would have gotten airborne it would have made a big difference in both disrupting the Japanese attack & inflicting more losses. Do you not thing the japanese got lucky because a flight of B-17's was flying in on that very same morning? You yourself shoot down your argument by bringing up the fact that Welch didn't have any .50 caliber ammo availiable but despite that they shot down several aircraft.

[Rich]

..while i still waiting for a reason that explains how 30' warning (n.w: not a radar contact, but just the news about japan declarations) could have changed massively the things. The first two pilots (Welch) that took off with P-40s run with a car for 25 km and then grab two fighter still untouched but left without 12.7 mm, as the airbase had not such ammunitions. what kind of difference were 30 minuts, then? You cannot improvise a Fighter Command like the RAF

 

Why does it require a Fighter Command when most of the damage done to the Japanese attackers was when the antiaircraft defenses were fully alert and near full operational capability? See, for example, the probable fate of the entire Japanese torpedo bomber flotilla that I have already extensively detailed if the defenders had just had 15 minutes more warning. Given that the worse damage to the fleet was done by the torpedo bombers, if they are taken out of the equation, then instead of four battleships and two cruisers badly damaged or sunk, there would likely be at most one or two battleships moderately or lightly damaged.

 

BTW, it was Welsh, not Welch, and with his squadron-mate Taylor the two managed to each shoot down two Japanese aircraft, despite the absence of .50 caliber ammunition aboard their aircraft (what the heck would they have wanted with 12.7 mm anyway?)The other 12 pilots that took off probably managed to score another four to seven kills total, which is actually a remarkable performance...made easier by the fact that possibly none of them were forced to engage any of the Japanese fighters.

 

As for the rest, 30 minutes allows the USAAF plenty of time to disperse aircraft at Wheeler and Hickam, and to prepare the dispersed aircraft for combat. That alone gives the Japanese dive bombers and fighters assigned to that task considerably more difficulty...then add in an alerted airfield defense and the American losses there decrease exponentially, while the Japanese increase. Given that the plan had a built-in and unavoidable delay in which the historical defenders managed to launch aircraft, the second Japanese wave has additional problems to deal with...and absolutely no doctrine or orders for defense of the bombers by escorting fighters.

 

Also, i still wonder how japans had to do to archivie a total success or a greatly executed plan. In a real world, what happened was a eclatant success anyway, and i wonder how someone not consider it as such. US felt themselves heavily whipped, japans were very happy, so why discount this action?

 

Yes, I rather thought that you would answer by mewling about how great their success was...and dodge into a "well the Japanese were happy with the results" triumph of circular reasoning. You are the one that claimed the plan was "brilliant", but are having problems justifying that statement. I gave you a substantial answer to your original question already, why should I now have to answer a second question for you that you are so evidently incapable of answering yourself...but profess to believe in? If you want to argue questions of faith then go to a seminary.

 

Cheers!

[Rich]

It could be that Japanese troops simply refused to accept Chinese surrenders, and killed them on the spot for the most part.

 

Well, I guess that makes it alright then...

[Ken Estes]

Well this seems to be the argument for Italì as well. We 'brava gente' gassed a lot of Lybians and Ethiops without any care (ok spanish did the same in north africa). When Mrs. Graziani was badly wounded in Ethiopia (1938?) there was a brutal repression with thousands killed. This while in Italì radio broadcasted 'faccetta nera/bell'abissina'. Propaganda is a nasty beast everywhere, but italians excelled in picturing themselves as 'brava gente' (good fellas) while making any crime immaginable. A dissociating thinking that i always found highly hipocrital. Even now we don't make wars, just 'peace keeping' ecc.

 

But sure, seeing what happened in China or with firebombings, lagers ecc, any italian action seems to be almost a joke. Apparently italians had a inferior complex vs british/US and this maybe limited crimes and atrocities. British were gallant as well, atleast in Mediterranean there was a sort of 'sportive thinking' about the battles and the POW handling. Malta and Sicily even had a telephone calling daily to discuss about POWs and losses (until Germans came). Rommel was not a nazist and apparently had not any inclination to make bloody warcrimes. So the game was hard, but 'fair'. Atleast until the massive bombing campaigns over Italì (Rome, Milan, Cassin ecc. ecc.) that really weren't 'fair' at all. Then the war came really bad and there were the anti-partisan operation with massive civilian killings made by nazi-fascists (Marzabotto, S.Angelo).

 

 

 

..while i still waiting for a reason that explains how 30' warning (n.w: not a radar contact, but just the news about japan declarations) could have changed massively the things. The first two pilots (Welch) that took off with P-40s run with a car for 25 km and then grab two fighter still untouched but left without 12.7 mm, as the airbase had not such ammunitions. what kind of difference were 30 minuts, then? You cannot improvise a Fighter Command like the RAF

 

Also, i still wonder how japans had to do to archivie a total success or a greatly executed plan. In a real world, what happened was a eclatant success anyway, and i wonder how someone not consider it as such. US felt themselves heavily whipped, japans were very happy, so why discount this action?

Rather hopeless to see the point, as you mix colonial warfare [don't forget your pals the Brits used gas in Iraq until 1923] and WWII, where clearly there were differing standards of conduct followed. Then we get more self-flaggelation over the Italians, and then you dither about the 30 minutes and bring Fighter Command into it as if there is relevance. I'm with Rich, why bother with such tediousness.

[Marek Tucan]

Actually re. coordination between bombers and escort (or rather "fighters going on free hunt and bombers on free attacks"), didn't the Japanese stick to this? ISTR several occassions when SBDs acted as makeshift interceptors vs. Japanese bombers while fighters were doing many things, but not escorting the bombers.

[Assessor]

So are you one that accepts prior acts by group A are justification for acts by group B? But why use the Americans and Europeans as role models for the Japanese when the Khans were from the lands Japan was raping and plundering? By the same token, weren't the Europeans, and their progeny, the "white" Americans following the examples of their historical oppressors, the Khans, Huns, and Vandals (All Asian I might add) and thus should be offered the same rationalization for their acts?

 

You will now offer the supreme objective view as seen from on high.

 

Point of order: the Vandals were not Asian. Their point of origin as an "Eastern Germanic Tribe" was well to the west of the Urals / Caucasus, taken as the dividing line between Europe and Asia

[swerve]

Where the Japanese and Germans went wrong is in wanting to acquire colonies at least 2 generations after everyone else had got there, and married it with rather nasty racial policies to justify it. In fairness we went through stages like that (Not least in India) but the stated policy was to improve the standards of those we colonised.

Nope. The original, completely explicit, policy was to make money. That was it, pure & simple. The Imperial mission idea, to civilise & bring Christianity to the benighted heathen, came later. So did most of the racism, & about the same time.

 

Look at India. In the 17th century we (& the French, Dutch, Portuguese & Danes) had trading posts. Some of these were expanded to control relatively small areas of land around them, but the sole justification for their existence was commercial. When Plassey gave the HEIC unforeseen & unplanned control of a large area of land, the immediate reaction wasn't even to treat it as a colonial possession, but to loot it. It took a generation before the company even understood that to maximise returns from its new possessions it had to manage them for long-term yield, rather than just extract as much tribute as possible as quickly as possible. There were British trading posts in India for 150 years, then the HEIC ran it as a commercial venture for a century, & before it was taken over by the Crown - for only 90 years. That was the first stirrings of the idea of colonial responsibility. "The White Mans Burden" was published in 1899, by which time the idea was widespread. But colonialism had been around for almost 400 years by then.

 

The Dutch, similarly, founded their colonies for money. Their "Ethical Policy" (Ethische Politiek) was adopted in 1901. That was the first colonial policy explicitly aimed at increasing the welfare of the colonial subjects.

 

The early European traders in Asia, living among the locals, usually learned their languages & often adopted many of their ways. Being almost all male, they tended to shack up with local women, & quite often formally married them. Their mixed race offspring became important in the maintenance of the trading networks & the early colonies. Then along came the 19th century, & the rise of ideas of racial superiority. Oh, there was an element of that before, but the idea really took off in the C19. Marriages with locals went from pretty normal to meaning social exclusion & the loss of career, & the mixed-race population became a separate category, instead of overlapping & mingling with Europeans. The locals stopped being viewed as different but worthy of respect, & became ignorant heathens in need of European tutelage.

[istvan47]

istvan,

 

You just don't get it do you? The 30 minute warning meme is not a red herring that you make it out to be. The fact that men would have been at action stations,ships sealed up , more AA and ect and ect would have helped tremendously furthermore if any extra fighters would have gotten airborne it would have made a big difference in both disrupting the Japanese attack & inflicting more losses. Do you not thing the japanese got lucky because a flight of B-17's was flying in on that very same morning? You yourself shoot down your argument by bringing up the fact that Welch didn't have any .50 caliber ammo availiable but despite that they shot down several aircraft.

 

But 30' were about 'to know of japan war declaration', NOT to have awareness of the 6 carriers incoming to P.H. with 400 aicraft being launched. Can you understand the differences? Wake and Philippines say you nothing about? Hell, PH defenders could reach a 'RAF style' readiness perhaps after WEEKS from the war declaration. They, at the time, not even believed to be attacked at all!

 

Why does it require a Fighter Command when most of the damage done to the Japanese attackers was when the antiaircraft defenses were fully alert and near full operational capability? See, for example, the probable fate of the entire Japanese torpedo bomber flotilla that I have already extensively detailed if the defenders had just had 15 minutes more warning. Given that the worse damage to the fleet was done by the torpedo bombers, if they are taken out of the equation, then instead of four battleships and two cruisers badly damaged or sunk, there would likely be at most one or two battleships moderately or lightly damaged.

 

BTW, it was Welsh, not Welch, and with his squadron-mate Taylor the two managed to each shoot down two Japanese aircraft, despite the absence of .50 caliber ammunition aboard their aircraft (what the heck would they have wanted with 12.7 mm anyway?)The other 12 pilots that took off probably managed to score another four to seven kills total, which is actually a remarkable performance...made easier by the fact that possibly none of them were forced to engage any of the Japanese fighters.

 

As for the rest, 30 minutes allows the USAAF plenty of time to disperse aircraft at Wheeler and Hickam, and to prepare the dispersed aircraft for combat. That alone gives the Japanese dive bombers and fighters assigned to that task considerably more difficulty...then add in an alerted airfield defense and the American losses there decrease exponentially, while the Japanese increase. Given that the plan had a built-in and unavoidable delay in which the historical defenders managed to launch aircraft, the second Japanese wave has additional problems to deal with...and absolutely no doctrine or orders for defense of the bombers by escorting fighters.

 

Yes, I rather thought that you would answer by mewling about how great their success was...and dodge into a "well the Japanese were happy with the results" triumph of circular reasoning. You are the one that claimed the plan was "brilliant", but are having problems justifying that statement. I gave you a substantial answer to your original question already, why should I now have to answer a second question for you that you are so evidently incapable of answering yourself...but profess to believe in? If you want to argue questions of faith then go to a seminary.

 

Cheers!

 

So the most destructive action ever made by naval aviation was not 'brilliant'? What else, then? The results did not shocked the US leadership and public opinion? The results weren't praised by Japan leadership? The only complaint was to miss carriers.

 

Sending in a TOTALLY STEALTH ACTION six aicraft carriers over Pacific Ocean, with over 400 aicraft on board and then attacking avoiding any US sourvelliance (both intel and recce) was one of the most impressive naval operation made in the history and it is remembered as such. Rightfully, too.

 

And no, the second wave attacks, even with alerted defences, were still quite destructives. Not as the first wave, of course, but still destructive. Few minutes after the declaration of war made by Japan probably in Hawaii nobody would be even aware of that. BTW, it is not enough to have a declaration of war to sent immediatly the crew to a.a. mounts to see what is going on. There must be a clear approach warning to do so. Not even the british a.a. defences were always ready to intercept the incoming raids, despite being very proficient.

 

Seeing the INCOMPETENCE shown by Wake and Philippine leaders, despite the warnings, despite some hours of warning not 30', it is quite clear that pratically nothing could have changed the things that 7th December 1941.

 

But some US supporters seem really ignoring intellectual honesty, isn't? To elaborate better, with 'few minutes' of awarness the results would be like 100 a/c japan lost vs 1 BB damaged or so. That, to me, seems really pure fantasy. Colombo (spring 1942) was a typical example of this. Defenders were aware of the attacks, and the best thing they did was to lost 20 Hurricanes vs 4-5 japan planes.

Edited December 12, 2011 by istvan47

[DKTanker]

I disagree. As I have stated several times already, I do not agree with the Japanese decision to attack the United States but I feel it behooves us to consider their viewpoint if we are to understand their decision. Perhaps its better to state it from their point of view rather than automatically reject it out of hand as you appear to. You appear to mistake explanation for support.

First, I did describe their actions from their POV, I just don't subscribe to the theory that evil westeners forced Japan to commit attrocities during their naked aggression into mainland Asia. Furthermore, I don't subscribe to the theory that the west invited aggression upon themselves by not selling Japan the goods they demanded.

 

I'm not surprised that the Japanese were a bit nonplussed by criticism of their excesses when you have events like the Jallianwala Bagh massacre which seems to have slipped past US Government criticism.

BFD, hipocracy happens all across the world and all across the ages. Has that ever been legitimate justification for any action?

 

I think all imperialist ambitions should be condemned but I can understand the Japanese point of view that they seemed to be singled out whereas other nations could and often did, literally seem to get away with murder. The example they set wasn't a good one, now was it?

 

That, the highlighted bits, that is called rationalization. You have just rationalized why Japan was justified to commit attrocities on mainland Asia and further justified their reasoning for expanding the war against other nations.

[istvan47]

1-I see, so you advocate moral equivalence...the Europeans were doing it to each other, so it is okay for the Native American's to be doing it to one another...but shift to moral relevence if the Europeans do it to the American Indians. What a convienently flexible moral position to dance upon.

 

BTW, syphilis is a pittance compared to what the infliction of tobacco on Europeans by the Native American has resulted in.

 

2-Sigh...trust you to select one of the most contentious bits of historiography and anthropological debate and pretend that it is an absolute. Estimates for pre-Columbian Native American populations are little more than wild-ass-guesses tempered by the period in which they were made. They have tended to edge up over the years as social anthros and histos have tended to get more breast-beatingly, touchy-feely with one another. So we have the interesting proposition from Dobyns (1988) and Stannard (1992) that the population in the Americas was over 140-million when that of Europe was around 78-million.

 

For Mexico, we get ranges of estimates from Coe, Snow and Benson (1986) 11 to 25-million falling to 1.25-million in 1625, to Massimo Livi-Bacci (1996) of 6.3-million in 1548 falling to 1.9-million in 1580 and then to 1-million in 1605. Then there is Skidmore and Smith (1997) who postulate that the population fell from 25-million in 1519 to 16.8-million in 1523 to 1.9-million in 1580 to 1-million in 1605. Stannard (1992) guessed 25-million in 1519 falling to 1.3-million in 1595.

 

Fundamentally, whatever the numbers were, any encounter between Europeans and Natives, prior to the development of germ theory, mass innoculation against infectious disease and all the other paraphenalia that a stone-age Native civilization was going to need another 10,000 years to catch up to, was going to result in pandemic disaster for the Natives. Get over it.

 

3-Yes, exactly...for those Aztecs you're so warm and fuzzy about that means that according to Michael Harner (1977) "In 1946 Sherburne Cook, a demographer specializing in American Indian populations, estimated an over-all annual mean of 15,000 victims in a central Mexican population reckoned at two million [i.e. 1.5M sacrificed per century]. Later, however, he and his colleague Woodrow Borah revised his estimate of the total central Mexican population upward to 25 million. Recently, Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year." William Prescott (1843) remarked "Scarcely any author pretends to estimate the yearly sacrifices throughout the empire at less than twenty thousand, and some carry the number as high as fifty!"

 

And so on.

 

4-USA is? How charmingly monolithic a worldview you entertain. As a USAian I couldn't GAS myself and would prefer more open borders if it were possible, but that requires considerable other changes as well. Without immigration they never would have let my German ancestors, who suffered quite a bit of "racism" of their own in their day, in. I'm more worried by the invasion of this Grate Sight by postings that are stunningly ignorant in their construction and intent.

 

Cheers!

 

 

1- if you had half brain still working (kindness for kindness), then you'd notice that i have talked NOT about 'moral equivalence', but 'internal businnes'. What kind of right europeans had to 'learn' indians to be civil? Pizarro and Cortes showed cleary 'what' kind of civilization they had in mind. So don't make false and ipocrital statements.

 

2-Then, what was your point? Atzechs were the evil and so they deserved to be butchered by 'freedom makers' europeans? Mexico really enjoyed by such actions?

The fall of population caused by infection is well documented, even if the precise estimates are pratically impossible. What about if some mexican indians came in Europe and caused 50 millions death to us? Shall we praise their caming to us anyway? Oh, it was happened already! It was called 'Spanish flu' but sent thank to a USA soldier, isn't? The most important US contribution to the WWI.

 

3-So, the fate of Mexico was improved by spanish conquest? Is a fact 'certain' that the buchery was 250,000/y and not 20,000? Those human sacrificies would really last for another 100 years? The population would shrink to 10% of the total? Or you are babbling about the european conquest was 'healty' for mexican indians because the flu killed less indian in 100 years, than the atzech sacrificies?

 

4-USA is the 'politician leaderships', not every single US citizens. I do not say that you agree with the Texan wall or whetever law against illegal aliens. But it is sure, that some 'aliens' cannot do the damage to USA that european 'conquistadores/Settlers' did to indians in XVI/XVIII century. Not necessarly with a bad faith, not necessarly one-side, but still, for indian POV it was a catastrophe. Negate this is really stunning.

Edited December 12, 2011 by istvan47

[istvan47]

After some days and defatigating discussions about this issuse, i must quit.

It seems that we can agree (with some US patriots here) only if:

 

-we admit that japans were complete criminals

 

-japans attacked the clueless and peaceful US; in a sunday morning, go figure.

 

-nobody could preview this, apart that moron called Mitchell 15 years before.

 

-US weren't racist, or atleast, nothing if compared vs japans

 

-we must ignore the US politic toward Japan. Japan was the eevil anyway.

 

-japan attack was made by moron drunken monkey, apparently; they aimed criminally at every school and kindergarten (not even know that in Sunday they were closed, go figure); they failed so utterly, that instead hit 8 battleships and several hundreds aircrafts instead. Such incompotetent airmen

 

-30 minutes 'after the declaration of war' are translated in '30 minutes warning about an effective and incoming japan raid' no matter how this equation is baseless. We must believe that in that timeframe 100 fighters and 1,000 gunners were in air or looking for a target, no matter if they believe that the enemy was near Philippines instead.

 

-of course, Zero, usually very effective, magically would lost any capability vs Hawaii P-40s. So why wait for june 1944' turkey shooting? when we can have 300 japan aircraft shoot down already on 7/12/1941?

 

-we ignore the incompetence shown in Wake and Philippine by local commanders (=ie no war plans ready). But who cares, McArthur is a cool guy anyway

 

-ignore the US involvements to help UK and allied with thousands of war machines, ships, supplies; despite the 'neutral' condition. Germans and Italians had some US supplies as well, after all: *the stuff that they captured from Commonwealth and URSS*. Plus the ammo and bombs fired against them. Always better than nothing, no?

 

-the Nanking rape was a rightful explaination to Hiroshima

 

-the P.H. attack was a rightful explaination even for Nagasaki (no matter that Japan attacked almost entirely military targets, while the US destroyed ruthlessy entire cities with civilians inside)

 

-Colonization of America was a good thing for the local natives. They were freed by Atzechs and Incas. And they were not really 'good' anyway (yes, they had not yet invented rifles)

 

-everyone that is not in agreement with the above statement is here just for desplaying ignorance, bias against USA and basically, is a communist pro-Soviet hardware. Therefore he is deserve to be rightfully insulted and personally attacked, no matter his lack of personal bias vs other TNetters.

 

-ps. RPG and any other soviet weapon are good, at the most, as firecracker. Never praise them, especially if someone notes that US sometimes are left behind the technological curve. Oh, i forget. A M113 Gavin can whip a T-72 bataloon just like shot turkeys.

 

Things that would make happy some contributor in Encyclopedia Dramatica or Uncyclopedia, but here someone is taking them very seriously

Edited December 12, 2011 by istvan47

[swerve]

Sigh...trust you to select one of the most contentious bits of historiography and anthropological debate and pretend that it is an absolute. Estimates for pre-Columbian Native American populations are little more than wild-ass-guesses tempered by the period in which they were made. They have tended to edge up over the years as social anthros and histos have tended to get more breast-beatingly, touchy-feely with one another. So we have the interesting proposition from Dobyns (1988) and Stannard (1992) that the population in the Americas was over 140-million when that of Europe was around 78-million.

 

For Mexico, we get ranges of estimates from Coe, Snow and Benson (1986) 11 to 25-million falling to 1.25-million in 1625, to Massimo Livi-Bacci (1996) of 6.3-million in 1548 falling to 1.9-million in 1580 and then to 1-million in 1605. Then there is Skidmore and Smith (1997) who postulate that the population fell from 25-million in 1519 to 16.8-million in 1523 to 1.9-million in 1580 to 1-million in 1605. Stannard (1992) guessed 25-million in 1519 falling to 1.3-million in 1595.

 

 

Yes, exactly...for those Aztecs you're so warm and fuzzy about that means that according to Michael Harner (1977) "In 1946 Sherburne Cook, a demographer specializing in American Indian populations, estimated an over-all annual mean of 15,000 victims in a central Mexican population reckoned at two million [i.e. 1.5M sacrificed per century]. Later, however, he and his colleague Woodrow Borah revised his estimate of the total central Mexican population upward to 25 million. Recently, Borah, possibly the leading authority on the demography of Mexico at the time of the conquest, has also revised the estimated number of persons sacrificed in central Mexico in the fifteenth century to 250,000 per year." William Prescott (1843) remarked "Scarcely any author pretends to estimate the yearly sacrifices throughout the empire at less than twenty thousand, and some carry the number as high as fifty!"

 

And so on.

Cheers!

Borah, Cook & the other members of the California School started out combating a minimalist school which chose to underplay the decline on ideological grounds, & then seem to have got carried away with their revisionism. They also seem to have enjoyed the controversy at times. I suspect their figures (e.g. the 18-30 million range, which seems to be what they eventually settled on) are too high. But neither do I trust the minimalists. The epidemics of 1520, 1531, 1538, 1545 & 1576 weren't equally devastating (the 1520, 1545 & 1576 ones seem to have been the worst, but contemporary accounts all agree on depopulation of considerable areas.

 

I tend to agree with the "moderates", who reckon population fell by "only" (!) 50-80%, tending towards the upper end of that range. England had a population decline of 60% in a century from the Black Death & recurrences of plague, & I find it hard to accept that the multiple epidemics which hit Mexico would have been considerably less lethal, as the minimalists insist. So . . . maybe 5-10 million in 1500.

 

BTW, the population is pretty accurately known from 1700 or so, due to parish registers, tax records, & colonial censuses. All of these also exist for the 17th century, & some for the 16th, but are far less complete.

[swerve]

I think that Germans and Japans were effectively brutal and criminal in their PRs (to say the least) attitude vs locals. Germans were maybe the most surprisingly, as they did have a colony empire before WWI and they seemed to managed it well. I don't know of african racial massacres done by german settlers, or atleast, no worse than the average of the time. The german resistence in Africa during WWI was legendary, it can't to be done without local support.

German actions in SW Africa during the conquest were genocidal. Look up the Hereros & Namaquas.

 

The legendary resistance of the mostly askari colonial army in German East Africa was not replicated in SW Africa. The conquest of East Africa had been equally lethal, as had the suppression of the Maji-Maji rebellion, but the latter had been tempered by amnesty & relatively humane treatment for rebels who surrendered, & a change in policy in recognition of the causes of the revolt. None of this happened in SW Afrika, IIRC. Also, both the conquest & the suppression of the Maji-Maji rebels had followed the classic divide & rule principle, having largely been done with the help of local allies.

Edited December 12, 2011 by swerve

[ickysdad]

istvan,

 

I know what your trying to say but if the Opana Point radar report hadn't been dismissed as the B-17's coming in scheduled for that morning the crews would have been at action stations & such,fighters would have been aloft and on and on. No the 2nd raid was as destructive as it was because so much damage had been done in the first.

 

I'd like to point out that a 30 minute warning MIGHT have taken some of the post battle bitterness out of the American mind BUT as Rich has pointed out the document in question wasn't a declaration of war furthermore even if delivered in time it wouldn't subtract from the treachery the attack implanted.