Nadine, re: "However, it does not follow, that had the Americans determined to follow your "no brutality" rules, they could not have crippled their own war machine badly, to the point where it would not have won.
First, they could have failed to finish off Japanese resistance in many places by being unwilling to exterminate the Japanese fighters. Second, they could have lost many US Soldiers to the tricks of Japanese soldiers feigning surrender. Third, by valuing the lives of Japanese civilians very highly, they could have provided Japanese soldiers with a splendid opportunity for using human shields. Forth, they could have extended the war indefinitely by leaving the home islands essentially untouched by not bombing civilians."
You don't understand much about real war, do you?
First, when we successfully won the battle for the skies and the seas it was only a matter of time before we "won" the war.
Second, war is brutal. That's an essential element of killing the other guy. Brutal is, however, not interchangeable with "brutal atrocities" and your clever attempt to equate the two is transparent.
Third, no one's talking about "tricks...feigning surrender," or "splendid opportunities for using human shields" or "leaving the home islands essentially untouched."
The issue being discussed was the deliberate execution of surrendered Japanese soldiers by American servicemen. As with your many efforts to justify American torture and other immoral or illegal acts under the "tit for tat" theory, you were, and you are, dead wrong. Ed |
