|
|
#91
05-12-2005, 08:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Inviolate
[ QUOTE ]
The Soviets would NOT occupy North Korea, South Korea, all Korea or anything Korean! It was the Chinese. [/ QUOTE ] (That's my quote, the rest of the quotes in this post are yours.) I challenge you to refute that. And if you try the wikipedia on me again, I will accuse you of attempted murder by amusement! Where in the Korean War was ever the possibility of Korea being occupied, as you claimed, by the Soviet Union? Show and tell, please. [ QUOTE ] For someone with an admitted unfamiliarity with the historiography of the subject, though, you seem pretty quick to produce extremely broad, factually inaccurate generalizations. [/ QUOTE ] "Admitted unfamiliarity" ?! [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img] I deny any recollection of that. I do concede I'm no historiographer and neither a historiomane am I. But I do believe I know enough on of post-WWII history to be able to have opinions on it. As to the Korean War itself, I believe I know a thing or two... Same goes for World War II, the issue of crimes against humanity, Allied and German military tactics, the political history of the era, etc. (My most recent reading on WWII happens to be Field Marshall Lord Alanbrooke's "War Diaries". ...Damn! Not a single mention of Dresden, there.) [ QUOTE ] ...something approaching a counterargument [/ QUOTE ] You must be in academia. [ QUOTE ] You have still to address my argument that killing an innocent draftee is no better than killing an innocent soldier. [/ QUOTE ] You're not making sense. You are asking me the difference between professional and called-up armies? (Did you mean to write "innocent civilians"? There is no physical distinction; there is only the moral, after-the-fact distinction between the death of a soldier, who's supposed to kill and/or die, and a civilian who's not supposed to do either. You are engaging in sophistry.) [ QUOTE ] Those were the choices available to FDR, Truman, et al.: firebombing, or invasion of the Home Islands. My argument is that firebombing was, on the whole, the least destructive option, than those who executed it bear no moral guilt for choosing the lesser of two evils. If they had firebombed, then ... massacred a bunch of innocents to no end, then obviously they wouldn't get a pass for the unnecessary atrocities. [/ QUOTE ] (Let's leave aside for a moment the fact that your argument, about "invading Japan versus A-bomb", is addressing the Pacific war only and not the European theatre of horror,.) You are saying, in other words, that if the killing of innocent civilians is done by firebombing, then it's OK; if it is done by what amounts to a "massacre" (however you think that's defined), then it's not OK. I am thinking perhaps that if a soldier with a flamethrower sprays with fire a house full of enemy children, then that's OK as well -- I mean, fire is fire, right? And if the United States discovers tomorrow a "humane" way of murdering innocent civilians, then that would make it even more OK to do so! I see. I admire your effort to absolve the Allied side of any guilt of war crimes whatsoever. This could be a strong anti-fascist viewpoint at work, there, which one should salute. However, facts are facts - and the rest is speculation. You are saying that war crimes, such as mass firebombings or atomic bombings of civilians, were necessary to win the war. I dispute that. (A perfect spot for picnic speculation.) You are further saying, once again, that by the fact alone that Tojo, Hitler et al started the war, the Allies are absolved of any war crime they committed or might have committed. This argument has merit only if war crimes are necessary to win a war -- which is the subject for the speculation mentioned above. If war crimes are NOT necessary to win a war, then the only merit your argument has is that it's the argument of the victors. Which (Vae Victis) is where I came in. 
|
|
#93
05-12-2005, 11:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Inviolate
[ QUOTE ]
Where in the Korean War was ever the possibility of Korea being occupied, as you claimed, by the Soviet Union? Show and tell, please. [/ QUOTE ] My claim was that after WWII, North Korea was occupied by the Soviets. This is true. (I can cite EB if you want something a bit more reputable.) (This was in the context of suggesting that, had the war dragged on, more areas might have been occupied by the USSR). The Korean War was mentioned because Soviet occupation led to the partition of the country, which in turn was the cause of the war. I never suggested that the Soviets ever occupied the South, or tried to occupy the South, or would have occupied the South had the Korean War gone the other way. If you carefully reread what I had to say, that's all you will see. -My argument about Hitler and Tojo being responsible for Allied atrocities was not meant to extend to all fire-based atrocities, but rather to all atrocities necessary or seemingly necessary to bring an end to the war. The key point of that quote was the "to no end" bit. Again, I think any fair reading of what I said makes that pretty clear. Anyways, the crux of my argument, which you continue to brush off, is that the distinction between civilian and soldier is not really justifiable in a WWII context for a lot of reasons: 1. Voluntariness. These people aren't out there willingly, they haven't assumed the risk of dying, they don't want to lay down their lives for their country. 2. Fairness. One major reason for the combatant/non-combatant distinction is a sense of fair play: it offends a sense of decency for an organized force of armed men to go about killing helpless innocents. But in WWII, many of those who died were pretty much helpless themselves. (soldiers killed by artillery or bombing, for instance.) 3. Utility. If the Seven Years War had been decided by killing civilians, the British would have had to kill hundreds of thousands of French to deplete their capacity to fight. In battle, many fewer deaths brought an outcome. In WWII, on the other hand, soldiers' lives were cheap, and it was the industrial backing that really determined a country's capacity to fight. In terms of sheer casualty figrues, devastation of urban centers accomplished these goals with costs similar to those that would have been incurred using "clean" fighting techniques. I need better reasons than the GC and "soldiers are supposed to die" to justify this distinction. Go talk to one of the dwindling number of WWII vets and ask them if it was their understanding that they were supposed to die before a German or Japanese civilian.
|
|
#94
05-13-2005, 05:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Interim
[ QUOTE ]
My claim was that after WWII, North Korea was occupied by the Soviets. Had the [World War II] war dragged on, more areas might have been occupied by the USSR. Soviet occupation led to the partition of the country, which in turn was the cause of the war. I never suggested that the Soviets ever occupied the South. [/ QUOTE ] Jeez, are they teaching you classes on being obstinate in your college? Are they telling you not to admit even simple mistakes? Well, you are being disingenuous, sorry. You wrote "[Dragging] out the war ... might have allowed the Soviets to extend their gains or demand joint occupation of Japan" in this post and I have no objection with it. But you also wrote "You could ask the millions of ...killed... during the Korean War about the value of the "political advantage" of keeping Soviet occupation in check" in this post, a statement that is a fallacy, and to which my objection was directed. Arguing about non-issues, such as the above no-brainer (no offence meant), is not exactly advancing your credibility about being able to discuss true issues. [ QUOTE ] Go talk to one of the dwindling number of WWII vets and ask them if it was their understanding that they were supposed to die before a German or Japanese civilian. [/ QUOTE ] This is not an argument. If you were to ask me to make a choice between me living and a beautiful baby girl living, I'd choose for the other person to die -- no matter what that person is. It's a little thing called self-preservation instinct. The question should be treated more seriously than that. [ QUOTE ] Voluntariness. These people aren't out there willingly, they haven't assumed the risk of dying, and they don't want to lay down their lives for their country. [/ QUOTE ] I presume you are referring to the soldiers of both sides. If this is so, then you are wrong. The soldiery is supposed to kill. This alone makes it a legitimate target for killing, in turn, morally and legally. A civilian taking up arms against a soldier is to be executed on the spot, if captured. A soldier captured is not. The GC merely ratified what the rules of human war dictated for the recent past centuries. [ QUOTE ] Fairness. One major reason for the combatant/non-combatant distinction is a sense of fair play: it offends a sense of decency for an organized force of armed men to go about killing helpless innocents. But in WWII, many of those who died were pretty much helpless themselves. (soldiers killed by artillery or bombing, for instance.) [/ QUOTE ] Sorry but this, either, doesn't wash. You are bringing the aspect of military technology into this, just as theorists of "limited" nuclear warfare were doing in the 1960s. It is true that military technology, with the advent of long-distance artillery, aerial bombing, nuclear rockets, has rendered the field soldier more and more "helpless". Yes, military technology has rendered the battle "unfair" to the soldier, in the sense that a soldier's heroism is getting more and more irrelevant to such a battle’s outcome. But, please note, this does NOT mean that ALL the persons in the theatre of war, which includes civilians, are legitimate targets. It is simply a leap in the argument's logic to go from the "helpless" soldier to the civilian following the soldier to the grave. [ QUOTE ] Utility. [/ QUOTE ] I respect that argument, actually. There is merit to it. Wars between industrialized nations would, sooner or later, bring into the war industrialism itself, which means the whole population. Again, we are smack in the middle of a speculation picnic! I posit that Total War, a phrase coined by none other than Goebbels, was not necessary to win WWII for the Allies, in view of the fact that the combined power of the Allies, after the US entered the war, was so overwhelming as to merit avoiding, on purely military as well as moral grounds, the utter devastation meted out to German cities. (The military objection stems from the fact that the carpet-bombing of the cities, combined with the demand for unconditional surrender, in fact, strengthened the will of the entire German population to fight on. Which justified, after the fact, their collective punishment! It's like punishing and, by punishing, causing the crime to happen!) P.S. Totalkrieg however was "necessary" for the Germans to wage it, because they were cornered. But this is another matter that needs to take into account the unconditional surrender prospects faced by the Nazis. (In essence, the people of anti-Nazi Europe were said to be willing to pay the price, in lives and damages, that unconditional surrender implied in order to get rid once and for all of the Nazis as a political entity.)
|
|
#95
05-16-2005, 05:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Interim
You're hardly one to talk about obstinacy, given that every post you've made so far is an inane rehash of the GC and some variation of the phrase "soldiers are supposed to kill/be killed."
I would like to clear this up once and for all. [ QUOTE ] You could ask the millions of ...killed... during the Korean War about the value of the "political advantage" of keeping Soviet occupation in check [/ QUOTE ] This is what I said. Construction #1: "Soviet occupation caused the Korean War and caused many deaths." This has several advantages. I said repeatedly that that's what I meant. It makes sense. It's factually true. etc. Construction Bizarro: "The Soviets tried to occupy S. Korea and in doing so killed many people." This statement has nothing to do with my argument. I suppose I would be arguing that Soviet occupation is such bad thing that many people were willing to die to prevent it? Maybe. But then, that sentence was in a paragraph talking about how Soviet occupation of the North lead to many deaths in that country. So it would make more sense to talk about two EFFECTS of the same Soviet occupation (the post-WWII occupation of North Korea, prior to the Korean War), rather than one effect, and one price paid to prevent a possible invasion. FYI, a fallacy is not the same thing as a factual mistake. A fallacy is an argument that is logically incorrect. A mistake is an asserted fact that is untrue.
|
|
#96
05-16-2005, 07:01 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
You must be bunking where Dubya slept. Fumigate!
[ QUOTE ]
You could ask the millions ...killed... during the Korean War about the value of the "political advantage" of keeping Soviet occupation in check [/ QUOTE ] Construction Obviouzamente Correct-o-mundo: Lotsa people died during the Korean War in order to keep Soviet occupation of Korea under control. When the Korean War broke, the Chinese Communists did the fighting alongside the North. (It was natural. After all, the Chinamen had the common border.) The Sovietskies only sent advisors, materiel, etc. If the Commie side had won, Korea would have been awash in soldiers from Yellow Peril country; not from Vladivostok. This is what is logically understood from the way you wrote it. You wrote it carelessly and the meaning was not what you intended it to be. It was only a matter of clarification until you made it out to be a codicil in Howard Hughes' last will and testament. Oh well, I shall bother myself no more with this "Yale argument". [ QUOTE ] FYI, a fallacy is not the same thing as a factual mistake. [/ QUOTE ] FYI, you've committed both -- so far. I will let others elaborate, because the thread is young.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
