World War II's Last Surviving Doolittle Raiders Make Their Final Toast 211
Hugh Pickens DOT Com writes "As we come up on Veteran's Day, Barrie Barber reports for the Dayton Daily News that the last Doolittle Raiders symbolically said goodbye to a decades-old tradition and to a history that changed the course of the Pacific war in World War II. Gathering from across the country together one last time, three surviving Raiders sipped from silver goblets engraved with their names and filled with 1896 Hennessy cognac in a once-private ceremony webcast to the world at the National Museum of the U.S. Air Force. Robert E. Cole, 98, led the final toast to the 80 members of 'the Greatest Generation' who took off in 16 B-25 Mitchell bombers April 18, 1942, from the deck of the USS Hornet to bomb Japan four months after a Japanese surprise naval and air attack on Pearl Harbor. 'Gentleman, I propose a toast,' said Cole, as about 700 spectators watched one final time, 'to those we lost on the mission and those that passed away since. Thank you very much and may they rest in peace.' Acting Secretary of the Air Force Eric Fanning said the raid showed the courage and innovation of the World War II airmen flying from a carrier in a bomber that had never seen combat to attack a heavily defended nation and to attempt to land at unseen airfields in China in a country occupied by Japanese troops. More than 70 years after the attack, Edward J. Saylor, 93, remembered ditching at sea once he and his crew dropped their bombs and several close calls with being discovered by the Japanese Army while making his way through China. 'This may be the last time I see them together,' said the 92-year-old raider who has attended Raider reunions since 1962. 'It's a little sad for me because I've known them so long and know the story of what they did in 1942.'"
What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:3, Insightful)
May the Japanese casualties rest in peace as well.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Chill, dude, WWII is over. Quit holding a grudge.
Re: (Score:3)
>>November 11th was the end of World War I (28 July 1914 - 11 November 1918; the USA got involved in 1917).
Wow, not only did you not RTFA, you did not read (or understand) that the F'ing summary is talking about a tradition from a WWII event. At least make ignorant comments or trolling 'corrections' on things that are true or that you actually understand.
Slashdot where have you gone?
It still took the USA 2 years and a cowardly attack on Pearl Harbour to pull their fingers and start getting involved.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Interesting)
The imperial government of Japan bears full responsibility for the pacific war, no question about it.
Having said that, I do take exception to part about it being a "cowardly attack." It's was a brave, gutsy move, and it could have succeeded (although even if it had succeeded it probably would only have delayed the inevitable). The US blockade on Japanese shipping and imports had caused intolerable problems so something had to change. Disastrously, what changed was an expansion, rather than reduction, of the war.
Please do not interpret this as any defense of the Japanese. Both of my parents faced Japanese invasion -- and not all of my relatives survived the occupation. I would not have been born had the Americans not been willing to enter the war and completely finish the job. But even with all of that I cannot consider the attack on Perl Harbor to be in any way "cowardly" -- unless you can take the position that violence is always the coward's way out (a position I do respect, though perhaps cannot share).
Embargo, not blockade (Score:4, Informative)
The US blockade on Japanese shipping and imports had caused intolerable problems so something had to change.
There was *no* blockade. There was an embargo. The U.S. told Japan that as long as it invades/occupies China we would not sell oil, steel, etc to Japan. The change the U.S. *wanted* was for Japan to withdraw its troops from China.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they wanted Japan out of China, and deservedly so. The US was doing the right thing.
I don't quibble over "blockade" vs "embargo" -- they blocked Japan from the panama canal, for example. But regardless, it was economic pressure, and the Japanese imperial war council chose to respond by fighting. This kind of pressure (called "sanctions" these days, I suppose from the UN sanctioning the restrictions) doesn't work much better now than it did then, unfortunately, though I can't think of much of a bett
Re: (Score:2)
There was an embargo and Japan was concerned that attacking British, Dutch, and French holdings would drag the US into the war. There are two questions. The first is whether Japan had intents on the Philippines or whether dislodging the US forces there was a necessary step in combination with the attack on Pearl Harbor in order to open up the way towards Australia without leaving a hostile garrison at their backs. The second is whether the US might have gone to war with Japan gobbling up the British, Dutch,
Re: (Score:3)
It *was* cowardly in that they attacked before declaring war.
If you are going to start a fight with a sucker punch, you get no sympathy when the other guy kicks your ass.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not so sure about those who blindly followed those leaders without thought or due to political brainwashing and my brain isn't working well enough on a Monday morning to get that deep into philosophy...
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Executing? Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:2)
A fascinating read, and yeah it has creepy implications about what people can do. Something everybody should know about.
Excerpt: The experiment... measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience
You make an excellent point. Reminds me of the experiments where a person was made to think they were executing someone in the name of science. While a part of me keeps saying the brainwashed are weak, I need to remember I'm probably not any stronger and am deluding myself to think otherwise.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Sympathy applies for all war casualties, there is no more stupid waste of life.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't agree. For all that I've no use for people who don't realize that, unlike many recent ventures, the US fought WWII for very good reasons, and probably saved millions of lives by doing so, I'm not completely averse to the Japanese remembering their civilians lost in the war. Personally I have little use for Japanese sanctimony about the use of the A-bombs, but commemorating the dead is another matter. Even remembering, if not commemorating, their rank-and-file war dead, while a touchy subject, doesn't seem completely unreasonable to me. Many of the rank-and-file had little choice but to "serve".
Re: (Score:3)
Many of the rank-and-file had little choice but to "serve".
You always have a choice. You never get considered to be more moral for being unwilling to die rather than kill people. You're just selfish. Understandably so, but that changes nothing, especially for the people you kill.
Get real man! Many of those people, whether serving as soldier or at home doing their normal stuff, didn't even realise they had a choice. Especially in Japan it's in their culture and in their blood. They're raised like that, from the first day of their life. You have to be pretty clever and independent to stand up to that and survive without being put in some kind of institution because you're ill or crazy or criminal.
No TV, no internet, facebook, phone, twitter or google. Even radio was sparse with limit
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pop quiz: Who sold the Nazis fuel and metal so that they could run around killing
Pop quiz: were all 150 millions Americans of a like mind and did they act in perfect concert during WWII?
As for for FDR's cynical, but perhaps justified, treatment of such actions during the war, perhaps you'd like to read the descriptions of the very people whose research uncovered this treason. You can start here [libcom.org]. Should the "business people" responsible been tried for treason after the war? Hell yes.
We fueled the war deliberately
You mean by things like the Lend Lease Act? Ask the British if they objected to US aid prior to our entry into the war.
then entered the war
You mean an America with a strong isolationist sentiment, and a desire not to get hundreds of thousands of her own people killed, didn't enter the war until after we were attacked by Japan, and then a few days later, Nazi Germany declared war on us? That's true.
It permitted us to reduce a bunch of our excess population
You mean the population that people were concerned had a declining birth rate, due to the Great Depression? At any rate, it wasn't a very effective policy for reducing our population. As horrific as our losses of over 400,000 Americans were, it reduced the population by only 0.27%. Then the whole thing was undone by the millions born in the post-war baby boom. A seriously failed policy.
One other minor problem: there is absolutely no evidence for the absurd notion that we wanted to "reduce a bunch of our excess population".
You always have a choice.
Technically that's true. If somebody puts a gun to your head and tells you to either join the military or be shot now, and you choose the bullet now, your heirs will be free to praise you morality. Until and unless that happens to you, shove your sanctimony.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice post. But....why did you waste such time and talent feeding a troll?
A compulsion is a terrible thing to waste.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Informative)
RE:
"The entire attack would not have happened except for a delay by some US political figure whose name I forget at the moment to see the Japanese Ambassador."
You are totally wrong - the attack was absolutely going to happen when it did. The planes were already in the air.
The sole purpose of the ambassador's visit was to present the declaration of war immediately before the attack so that Japan could not be accused of a "sneak attack". It planned to be timed so that there would be only a moments delay between the declaration and the actual attack so that there would not be time to warn the American bases.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't agree. For all that I've no use for people who don't realize that, unlike many recent ventures, the US fought WWII for very good reasons, and probably saved millions of lives by doing so
Since you seem a bit confused about the reason the United States of America joined the war effort let me educate you. The USA practised an isolationist policy and refused to join World War II to defeat Germany and its allies until Japan carried out an attack on Pearl Harbor. The entire attack would not have happened except for a delay by some US political figure whose name I forget at the moment to see the Japanese Ambassador. When the Japanese Ambassador and his aid heard of the attack from the person they were meeting they were gravely disappointed. There is a fact-based movie about the events leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor; not the crap movie made of recent vintage.
(Bold emphasis mine.)
Not the poster you're responding to, but if this fact-based movie you speak of is Tora! Tora! Tora!, you're forgetting key details.
In that movie it's made quite clear that the entire attack would happen whether or not the Japanese ambassador saw the US official. That delay was also secondary to another delay caused by a Japanese security directive that meant the regular typist(s) couldn't type up the last of the 14-part message, and a much slower hunt-and-peck non-typist with enough security clearance had to be used instead.
Whether that part of the movie is accurate is also largely irrelevant, since in reality the 14-part message was neither a declaration of war nor severed diplomatic relations (though combined with intercepted Japanese instruction to their embassy to destroy their decoding gear, it was taken as a strong indicator that either would've happened shortly afterward). Documents revealed in 1999 also strongly suggest the Japanese military convinced the government not to do so before their surprise attack happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Little wonder you posted AC .
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US _didn't_ maintain conventional military superiority over the Soviets. We held them off with threats of nukes.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Joe Kennedy gets a pass from you. Political hack!
Pinpoint raid, not carpet bombing (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, those damn civilians who started a war by going about their daily business! It's great that they died painfully by being burned to death!
The Doolittle Raid was not like the fire bombings that would come in 1945. The attacking bombers were small in number, carrying rather small loads and attacking at a low altitude where they had decent accuracy for the day. They were conducting pinpoint attacks on specific military targets, they were not carpet bombing a city. The raid was largely symbolic for the US and psychological for the Japanese, it did very little damage.
If you are a civilian working on a military base or working at a war munitions factory you legitimately *are* part of the war.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
More to the point, what about the Chinese casualties? The often ignored result of the raid was that the Japanese, in reprisals against any family, village or town that they thought might have helped the escaping Doolittle raiders, murdered about 250,000 men, women and children. That number is not a typo. It is not a mistake or an exaggeration. Two hundred and fifty thousand Chinese were slaughtered by the Imperial Japanese Army during the search for Doolittle's men.
Now please remind me again why I should care about the Japanese casualties.
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Dead citizens in Tokyo were for certain not involved in massacring the Chinese.
The Doolittle Raid attacked a small number of specific military targets, they were not carpet bombing a city. The raid was largely symbolic for the US and psychological for the Japanese, it did very little damage. If you are a civilian working at a war munitions factory in Imperial Japan you *are* involved in the massacre of the Chinese civilians.
Re: (Score:2)
Dead citizens in Tokyo were for certain not involved in massacring the Chinese
But the mass killing of Chinese civilians did not begin with the Doolittle Raid or even the Rape of Nanking. Nanking Massacre. [wikipedia.org] Events which to this day the Japanese government has never been willing to deal with honestly.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remind me again what you are doing to stop the American military from killing innocents in its wars?
Also, to which extent do you feel you deserve death for what they are doing?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
nobody should feel too bad if the USA gets wiped off the map
Like the way that Japan and Germany were wiped off the map? And if our goal was to wipe them off the map, why did we send food and other aid after victory?
Re: (Score:2)
Dead people have little need for food. If we went about wiping Germany off the map, the Germans wouldn't have had to rely on the Soviets or anyone else for food.
Re: (Score:2)
And you wouldn't have a space program. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Nabbing a few German scientists and engineers needn't have stopped us from wiping out the rest of Germany.
Re: (Score:2)
You make an excellent point. I would be interested in a cite about the number of Chinese killed, not because I doubt you, but out of historical interest. We should also remember that the Chinese provided great support and assistance to the survivors of the Doolittle raid.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
now, China... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd dispute that. Though they're no doubt capable of inflicting massive damage, the Chinese military does not have the overconfidence borne of defeating a major power in war, like the Japanese had against Russia.
Re: (Score:3)
I'd dispute that. Though they're no doubt capable of inflicting massive damage, the Chinese military does not have the overconfidence borne of defeating a major power in war, like the Japanese had against Russia.
Exactly. Being that you know something of early-mid 20th century history, are you allowed to participate in this thread?
Re:What about the Japanese casualties? (Score:5, Informative)
I would be interested in a cite about the number of Chinese killed.
"The First Heroes: The Extraordinary Story of the Doolittle Raid—America's First World War II Victory" by Craig NELSON. London: Penguin Press, 2002. ISBN 978-0-14-200341-1. See pages 226-228.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just curious, what is your opinion about those killed in 9/11? I'm pretty sure many Taliban were attacking the US due to people killed by the US in the middle east.
The Taliban didn't plan or execute the 9/11 attack.
For that matter, how do you know that the Taliban even gave a rat's ass about the Middle East? The Taliban were Pashtun, and it's questionable whether they cared about anyone in Afghanistan outside their tribe, let alone Arabs in the Middle East. OBL was tolerated by the Taliban in large part because of the money he gave them.
If you believe that 9/11 was in retaliation for American actions in the Middle East, you should also believe that the US invaded Iraq
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
May the Japanese casualties rest in peace as well.
Quoting the PP not because I agree with him, but because moderating him to -1 is censorship. That's ironic considering that one of the freedoms veterans fought to defend is freedom of speech. Don't bother me with "Slashdot is a privately owned forum, it's not the government censoring it", blah, blah, blah. This case isn't going to the Supreme Court. Nevertheless, modding down somebody who made a controversial, but not needlessly inflammatory or insulting remark, is stifling debate. That isn't how things are
Re: (Score:3)
You are coming to the posting early. As the thread matures, other folks will come along and mod him (or her) up. That's how it works with a system of unpaid moderators. You'll get the folks who will mod him down and others who'll mod him right back up. Eventually it'll balance out and the more thoughtful will have moderated him to +5 Insightful.
[John]
Re: (Score:2)
Hopefully you're right. Posting "why the hell did you mod him down" sometimes helps that. It does when I have mod points.
Re: (Score:2)
It's already at Score 2 Insightful. :)
[John]
Godspeed and thank you (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Godspeed and thank you (Score:4, Interesting)
Yes the phrase had a religious connotation originally but it does not really any more (to me anyway). Do you prefer god's speed or goodspeed (which to me sounds more like wishing someone a speedy journey to a known destination whereas godspeed or god's speed is more wishing a person a good journey to a destination which I do not and cannot know)?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It begs the question, "can we just stop using that expression altogether?" It sounds queer.
I see what you did there, twice. How easily we forget the origins of words. You make a fair point, and I bid you goodbye.
Re: (Score:3)
Would it have lessened his contribution if he had? His service is far more important than any religious differences you may have with him. Interestingly, there are few "Jesus Saves" postings on Slashdot, presumably because it's an inappropriate forum. For some reason, Evangelical Atheists think themselves different.
Thank You Veterans (Score:5, Insightful)
On this Veterans Day, I would like to thank all veterans for serving our country for protecting our freedoms and way of life.
Without these brave men and women, we would not be the mightiest, richest, most powerful nation on Earth.
God Bless America.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, our thanks hasn't much of a material side: If you're a librarian or a mail carrier or a DMV clerk you have today off, but if you're only a veteran you have to go to work.
Re: (Score:3)
My bent $0.02 and I don't care where you'd like me to shove it, I'll give my opinion when it suits me and you are welcome to do the same.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You are the ignorant one. So the Soviet Union was bad, that justifies warring on a SE asian country? and using a defoliant on the crops of *our allies* in that war to drive people to cities more under our propoganda, so that hundreds of thousands (again of *our allies*) starved and had horrible birth defects
As for Korea, look at the real history, where the U.S. took part part in war crimes including a slaughter of 100,000 "leftists", innocents and political prisoners.
First gulf war, we caim to aide of all
Who paid the price. (Score:2, Interesting)
Doolittle's raid had little/no actual strategic value.
The price tag was..... I have read estimates that between 300 thousand to 1 million Chinese paid the ultimate price for getting the crews out.
Not taking away from the valor of the crew. They deserve our undying respect.
But, the price paid for it..... I wonder.
willy
Re:Who paid the price. (Score:5, Insightful)
http://www.angelo.edu/content/news/1466-doolittle-raid-remembered-for-impact [angelo.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
You beat me to it (my more long-winded post can be found below), but precisely. PRECISELY. The Japanese military knew that the raid was just that -- a raid, and no more -- but they still felt compelled to respond. And Yamamoto won his argument for Midway as a DIRECT result of that raid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
> It tends to sent off my I know I read otherwise flag and my must reeducate style rants :)
Hah. Me as well. :)
Actually, if we're honoring heroes, here's one bunch that rarely gets a mention nowadays: the submariners who served in the Allied Navies in WWII. I'm going from memory, but at the end of the war, Nimitz chose to do his change-of-command ceremony on the deck of a submarine. He wanted to honor the fact that (here's the memory part, don't hold me to this) something like only ONE IN TEN (or was it
Re:Who paid the price. (Score:5, Informative)
What Drethon said. The Doolittle raid was a major embarrassment to the Japanese military, and it became clear that any repetition would be followed by rolling heads. As a result, some major naval assets were pulled back into home-waters defense, and that contributed a lot to the outcome at Midway.
Re:Who paid the price. (Score:4, Informative)
Doolittle's raid had little/no actual strategic value.
The price tag was..... I have read estimates that between 300 thousand to 1 million Chinese paid the ultimate price for getting the crews out.
Not taking away from the valor of the crew. They deserve our undying respect.
But, the price paid for it..... I wonder.
willy
WRONG
The Japanese response to the Doolittle raid was to attempt to seize Midway Island and the ensuing Battle of Midway [wikipedia.org]
The Battle of Midway ( Middow Kaisen?) in the Pacific Theater of Operations was one of the most important naval battles of World War II. Between 4 and 7 June 1942, only six months after Japan's attack on Pearl Harbor, and one month after the Battle of the Coral Sea, the United States Navy decisively defeated an Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) attack on Midway Atoll, inflicting irreparable damage on the Japanese fleet Military historian John Keegan called it "the most stunning and decisive blow in the history of naval warfare." It was Japan's worst naval defeat in 350 years.
The Japanese operation, like the earlier attack on Pearl Harbor, sought to eliminate the United States as a strategic power in the Pacific, thereby giving Japan a free hand in establishing its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere. The Japanese hoped that another demoralizing defeat would force the U.S. to capitulate in the Pacific War and thus ensure Japanese dominance in the Pacific.
The Japanese plan was to lure the United States' aircraft carriers into a trap. The Japanese also intended to occupy Midway as part of an overall plan to extend their defensive perimeter in response to the Doolittle air raid on Tokyo. This operation was also considered preparatory for further attacks against Fiji, Samoa, and Hawaii itself. ....
Re:Who paid the price. (Score:5, Informative)
> Doolittle's raid had little/no actual strategic value.
I may be a little older than you, but I'm surprised at the number of people nowadays who don't know what actually happened in WWII. It has been over half a century now, so at most it gets a chapter in the history books, highly condensed. I had the great pleasure of reading (among other things) Admiral Nimitz's history of that war, very detailed, with a look at every decision -- juggling horribly short assets against needs everywhere.
In fact, the Doolittle Raid had a significant strategic impact -- it caused the Japanese to redistribute their forces. In particular, they strongly weakened their carrier forces in the Indian Ocean. It also strengthened Yamamoto's position in favor of the Battle of Midway, which was the turning point of the entire Pacific war. (Some revisionist historians now want to argue with that, but their heads are filled with revisionist cheese. Losing several aircraft carriers in a single battle meant that Japan would never again be able to take the initiative.) :)
I hate war. As Sherman said, "War is hell." But if you attack me, or threaten those I love, I'm a typical American: I gitterdone, the entire time wishing that you'd just kept your mind right and left me alone. I'm not saying that everyone feels that way, but I am typical.
Only those who've seen the suffering can begin to imagine how awful war is. My Veteran's Day story comes from Sandy's grandfather, who was in a foxhole in St. Vith when the Germans kicked off the Battle of the Bulge. In my eyes, he was a freakin' hero, and I begged him to talk about it.
All he would say was, "I lost a lot of friends that day." Nothing more. I felt ashamed for bringing it up, and we changed the topic.
Yes, you can argue about Korea, Vietnam, et. al. But go back and read histories written by Nimitz and others who were there. No, there wasn't a great deal of fear that Germany or Japan could actually occupy the United States, but there was still a very real possibility that Japan and Germany would win. We've gotten cocky nowadays, but back then, what with bad torpedoes, ossified admirals who didn't want to use that "newfangled" radar, planes that couldn't keep up with the Mitsubishi Zero, it was anything but a guaranteed thing.
As for the results of an Axis victory, I suggest a good dose of Turtledove or other alternative history. It wouldn't have been pretty. At all.
Re:Who paid the price. (Score:4, Informative)
We've gotten cocky nowadays, but back then, what with bad torpedoes, ossified admirals who didn't want to use that "newfangled" radar, planes that couldn't keep up with the Mitsubishi Zero, it was anything but a guaranteed thing.
Can't emphasise this part enough. If you know nothing else about WWII in the Pacific, a person should really acquaint themselves with the Battle of Midway [wikipedia.org].
We had some advantages, and some disadvantages. But without incredible sheer luck, and the willing essentially suicidal sacrifices of the men of Torpedo Squadron 8 [wikipedia.org], things would have turned out completely differently. If the same strokes of luck had happened for the Japanese instead of for the US, the balance of our entire carrier force would have been wiped out (which was what the Japanese plan was when they forced that action in the first place). Had that happened, at best it would have been years before we could have built enough replacements to make it a war again.
BTW: Of Torpedo Squadron 8, only one man (and none of the planes) survived their runs. Their planes were hopelessly obsolete, and scored no hits on either their carrier targets or enemy planes. However, their pitiful attacks drew the air cover down at just the moment other squadrons of US dive-bombers arrived on the scene from high altitude, and oddly found the skies up there uncontested...
Re: (Score:2)
> But without incredible sheer luck ...
Yep. Part of that "sheer luck" thing was catching the Japanese carriers while they were refueling the planes. Our terrible planes and ordinance wouldn't have done nearly as much damage otherwise.
Korean War was not controversial ... (Score:2)
Regarding the attitude of getting it done while wishing the enemy had left my country and its friends alone, that characterizes the WW2 vets I grew up around very well. Other than SS troops, which they view as political and part of the problem, the recognized the necessity of it b
Can't a bunch of old farts get together and drink (Score:5, Insightful)
. . . without everyone making a international political fuss about it? War is terrible for all . . . and these lucky few just want to celebrate that they managed to get their hairy asses out of that shit alive.
Leave 'em alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of hard to leave 'em alone when they've got webcams on commemorating (not celebrating) soldier's sacrifice at their last get-together for all the world to see, eh?
Many Japanese were glad when news of surrender came and the war was finally over for them too. Not all their civilians were war mongers. I agree: War is hell for all involved, but for some it's more hellish than for others. [youtube.com]
Re:Why must we celebrate violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps you should learn the difference between celebration and commemoration.
Re:Why must we celebrate violence? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am quite content to both commemorate and celebrate the victory of the allied powers over:
Imperial Japan
Nazi Germany
Fascist Italy
I am quite happy to welcome the friendship of, and cheer for, democratic Japan, Germany, and Italy.
The world would be a very dark place indeed had the former regimes not been defeated.
Now their peoples and nations are shining examples to the world - long may they live and prosper.
Re:Why must we celebrate violence? (Score:5, Informative)
I don't know why you mention chemical weapons and atom bombs, since the Doolittle Raid involved neither. Nevertheless HE and incendiaries do kill people. They're not celebrating the violence of the mission, but the value of, and the the sacrifices made by, the men who flew that mission. That's what Veteran's Day is about. Considering the idiocy of getting into many of the wars we've gotten into, or started, in recent decades, you may forget that WWII was fought for very good reasons, and that the US was attacked by Japan. The US fight in the Pacific probably saved many lives elsewhere in Asia, the surrounding archipelagos, and Australia. We were allied with just about every other country fighting Japan. The penchant of the Imperial Japanese Forces for mass slaughter was not just propaganda. Good news though: we won, and have been at peace with Japan for 68 years. None of the Doolittle Raiders have complained about that.
Re:Why must we celebrate violence? (Score:4, Insightful)
The US fight in the Pacific probably saved many lives elsewhere in Asia, the surrounding archipelagos, and Australia. We were allied with just about every other country fighting Japan.
If everyone had just surrendered to the Japanese, there would have been much fewer deaths in the Pacific theater in WWII. The point of fighting that war was not about saving the quantity of lives, but the quality of them.
Re:Why must we celebrate violence? (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_war_crimes [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
The penchant of the Imperial Japanese Forces for mass slaughter was not just propaganda.
No, it was most certainly not. I follow a WWII twitter feed (@RealTimeWWII). They sent one last week talking about the Japanese airdropping food into Chengde full of plague-infected lice.
Now this is the kind of thing that is so cartoonishly evil that I immediately hit Google looking to debunk it. Nope, it happened [wikipedia.org] (note: that link is the human-rights equivalent of a goatse link. Don't click it lightly). In fact, they did a great deal of research into weaponing diseases before discovering that infected lice
Re:Why must we celebrate violence? (Score:5, Informative)
The Japanese government was installed by the United States after WWII
To their benefit, and I don't give a damn about complaints of paternalism. The US occupation of Japan was one of the most beneficent occupations of a vanquished enemy in history, and whether the motivation was genuine beneficence, ensuring that Japan never threatened us again, or a bulwark against the communists, doesn't change the fact.
Furthermore, the Japanese are free to to change their Constitution, but have chosen not to do so. The "under our direct control" may have been true in the 50's, or arguably the 60's, but certainly not in the 40+ years since. Do you think we'd invade Japan if, for example, they told us to close our bases there? We didn't invade the Philippines when they did so, or France, or New Zealand when they broke the ANZUS agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed - much of Japan's huge success following WWII was the result of Demings work on statistical process control which was rejected by established US industry, but accepted by the occupying government. The result was that Japanese industry rapidly became far more capable of producing quality products at a low cost compared to the US industry of the day. Of course, everybody uses statistical process control these days.
The post-WWII occupation of Japan really is a good example of how to do occupation. Ho
Re: (Score:2)
There is no end to war. It's as much a part of us as air and water. Better to learn from it, learn our history, learn the kind of men it takes to end such things and the loss we as a people experience when those men die, than to pretend it never happened. There ARE worse things than war. The continued existence of the 3rd Reich would have killed far more people that the war ever could have, not to mention the effect on human rights and freedoms it would have had. Celebrate violence when violence is the bett
Re:Imagine Japan doing the same (Score:5, Insightful)
Remembering historic events does not indicate rubbing it in the face of your former enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Americans. You are do [sic] full of it.
I'm not sure your comment even deserves a response, but are you saying that only Americans commemorate their veterans? Today is Remembrance Day in the UK and throughout the Commonwealth. Wave to those folks over our northern border - they were fighting WWII before we were. Do you think Russia fails to commemorate its veterans of the Great Patriotic War? (don't forget to thank them, because otherwise Nazi Germany would likely still be around). Should I go on listing the specifics for most of the Allies, or d
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
> Just imagine Japan doing a celebration of pilots raiding Pearl
> Harbor. Or how about Germany holding annual celebrations for pilots of the Blitz?
So many pseudo-intellectuals posting things like this. Do you not understand you would not dare say such things in those societies in the reverse?
Do you enjoy your freedom to speak? Good. I'm glad.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes history is written by the victors and the US has screwed up plenty of times but I haven't come across much evidence that any of the Axis powers in WW2 were richeous in any way.
Re:Imagine Japan doing the same (Score:4, Funny)
that any of the Axis powers in WW2 were richeous in any way.
Or even righteous.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Imagine Japan doing the same (Score:5, Informative)
Not saying all of this is 100% true and unbiased but given I was born 30 years after WW2 its the best I have to go on.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allied_war_crimes_during_World_War_II [wikipedia.org]
Death rates of POWs in WW2:
Chinese POWs held by Japan: 56 reported survivors at the end of the war (meaning nearly 100% were killed)
U.S. and British Commonwealth POWs held by Germany: ~4%
Soviet POWs held by Germany: 57.5%
Western Allied POWs held by Japan: 27%
German POWs in British hands 0.03%
German POWs in American hands 0.15%
German POWs in French hands 2.58%
Japanese POWs held by U.S.: relatively low, mainly suicides according to James D. Morrow
Japanese POWs in Chinese hands: 24% (though it seems like they have reason to be pissed off)
"However, 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.""
In some cases the US in fact court martialed American soldiers due to war crimes (even though many were ignored). As best as I can tell the US as a whole did not support war crimes even if a number of people in power did, whereas both the Nazis and Japan Empire at the highest levels supported and encouraged atrocities. If you have indications to the contrary, please show me the reports.
Re: (Score:2)
Japan celebrates its war criminals ... (Score:4, Informative)
Just imagine Japan doing a celebration of pilots raiding Pearl Harbor.
While the pilots themselves were not war criminals, merely military personnel following legitimate orders to attack a legitimate military target. Actual war criminals, including those who committed atrocities against civilians and prisoners or war, are explicitly included in annual commemorations of Japan's "heroic war dead".
This is one of the major sources of ill will between Japan and its Asian neighbors who were victimized by Imperial Japan. It suggests a lack of sincere remorse.
Or how about Germany holding annual celebrations for pilots of the Blitz?
What Japan does every year is more like including the SS camp guards in their memorial service.
Re: (Score:2)
No need to imagine. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Australia would like to talk to you about ANZAC Day [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Roosevelt was half dead at Yalta and his aid Algir Hiss worked for the Soviets.
Re: (Score:3)
We kept Stalin from unifying Europe. So say thanks and leave it at that.
Re: (Score:2)
Churchill was the one fighting against the eventual Soviet hegemony but he was pretty powerless in lieu of America contributing the bulk of manpower on the allied front combined with American politics and it being an election year in 1944. Britain was at its limits. During Overlord they were scraping personel from other military services to find about 40,000 men to fill in for the losses caused during that invasion. Britain had it's bargaining power before 1944 but after it was all in America's court.