Wars and ConflictsÌý permalink
The Crusades - Ethics of Aggression
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Ìý
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
The Crusades , those famous wars waged by the Catholic Emperors and Popes on the Holy land of Palestine centuries ago , those military offensives ended in little significance and put lot of question marks about the "Dark Age" of Western culture and Catholic teachings.
Were those offensives justified ?, What were the real motives and how can we evaluate the Ethical element ? -
Message 2
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
As I commented in the past "you, westerners" keep losing the greater picture: Crusades were a movement organised initially not by Catholics but by Eastern Romans, i.e. Orthodox not so much for re-controlling militarily parts of eastern Minor Asia (already infiltrated by Turkish muslims) and Palestine (long controlled by Arab muslims) but more for yielding power and control over an area where commerce was re-intensified with the influx of new valuable products such as sugar traded by Arabs that had reached already Indonesia - silk was long produced in Greek lands. Muslims saw crusades mainly as a minor threat compared to the recent Turkish conquest which they managed to handle indirectly by religious conversion and above all the massive Mongol armies arriving from the east which were unstoppable.
The whole plan led to a totally different direction as Eastern Romans soon lost control, Catholics became the main christian armies in the region, finally raiding and disintegrating the Empire while in parallel Mongols served one huge and fatal blow to the Arabic civilisation by wiping out its centers. The aftermath was that gradually the initially powerless Ottomans rose to conquer the greater area and freeze it while western Europeans already with the taste of sea-faring and with a genuine will to explore and learn and of course gain went ahead with global exploration.
There was no ethnical element in Crusades - only in the minds of propagandised people. And in that you have to put all, illiterate crusaders and their illiterate leaders, the fanatical priesthood and the devious Popes and of course the arrivist Eastern Roman political figures manipulating situations and finally bringing failure by becoming supposedly victims of their own plans (well, we forget that already part of these families had already moved their interests in North Italy - why do you think North Italians suddenly had the "free pass" in the Eastern Empire and after some 800 years remembered again to built and navigate a ship?). And really it is in that transfer of capital from the Byzantine Empire to North Italian city-states (fiscal paradises of their times) that preceded some 50-80 years the first Crusade and the amazing entrance (after a military defeat at Matzikert) of Seljuk Turks in eastern Minor Asia where the real root causes of the Crusades have to be found.
For me (personal opinion) there is no such evaluation of any ethnical element. -
Message 3
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
Muslims saw crusades mainly as a minor threat compared to the recent Turkish conquest which they managed to handle indirectly by religious conversion and above all the massive Mongol armies arriving from the east which were unstoppable.Ìý
Good point Nik.
In Islamic history the Crusades were generally viewed as being a minor affair - nothing to be too bothered about and no real threat to them.
This contrasts with the self-important view of the Crusades given by many Western historians. Ironically this relentless over-stating of the importance of the Crusades by Western historians etc has begun to rub-off on some Muslims (especially among those resident in Western countries) that now they have begun to view the Crusades as being part of some 'eternal' conflict between 'Islam' and 'the West'. -
Message 4
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Wednesday, 15th April 2009
Exactly! And that as-if eternal conflict between christianity and islam really ignores details such as the fact that during the Crusades you had as many Crusades between christians and muslims as between catholics and orthodox and catholics and heretics and catholics and pagans. It also ignores the fact that even during eras of harsh rivalries, rival christian groups and rival muslim groups would form short-lived alliances-of-interest. And speaking of modern times it ignores that the only full genocide against the millions of christians of Minor Asia by muslims was conducted by Turkey at a time they pretended to become secular and europeanised while christians in Syria, Iraq and Iran enjoyed relative tranquility for those turbulent times (and had lived centuries in quite harmonious relationship with muslims). On the other side the conflict view keeps forgetting that western powers are not interested in religion and it forgets where the likes of US/Europe condoned muslim violence against christians (Indonesia-East Timor, Bosnia and Kosovo, Caucasus etc.).
Back then as today religion was the pretext to the extend that christians who had the same religion, they had to invent an unbelievable "schism" to go on with their inter-fighting!!! -
Message 5
Posted by shufflin' peasant (U1778121) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Sorry Nik, I completely disagree, except for the point about the lack of recognition of the Eastern Orthodox resistance to the advance of Islam.
Palestine, Syria, Turkey and Egypt had very large populations of Christians in the late tenth and early eleventh centuries, in many areas Christians [Orthodox, Coptic, Syriac, Nestorian, etc] were the majority. The Byzantines were defending indigenous Christian populations against Islamic conquerors. The Orthodox church had always viewed the patriarchates at Antioch and Alexandria as equivalent to those in Rome or Constantinople. When Alexius Comnenus appealled to Urban II for assistance in the First Crusade it was only one generation since Michael Cerularius and Humbert of Candida had started the Schism, so it was possible that a joint operation would re-establish unity.
Urban II framed his appeals to the Western Knights as Christ's feudal vassals. They were to campaign for love of their lord/Lord and re-establish his Kingdom on earth. This sounds far fetched now, but fitted in very well with the ideology of the time: from Beowulf to Parzival and through all the chivalric romances the love of one's lord is a primary virtue and the love of Christ is the ultimate expression of this.
Indulgences should also not be under estimated. Western knights probably spent ten or fifteen times their annual income on a single season campaigning in Palestine. They mortgaged their estates and bankrupted their families for the opportunity to to cleanse their souls and the souls of their ancestors - this is difficult for the modern observer to understand, but I suppose you might compare them to the modern suicide bomber who simultaneously achieved death and salvation??? -
Message 6
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
Re: Message 5.
Shufflin' peasant,
I thank you very much for this interesting survey and I completely agree with it. Yes, for understanding history you have to try to transpose yourself in the mindset of the studied people of a certain period.
Thanks again for your point of view and warm regards,
Paul. -
Message 7
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 16th April 2009
No doubt the details you mention are all correct. There was this call to contain muslims and such, then that call created all that religious idealim and fanatiscim.
However the ruling class of Byzantines (these were mostly Greeks and Armenians) was in much more than ... protecting the christians, trust me! And they had not such a problem dealing with Seljuks in eastern Minor Asia. A single analysis in their economics shows that Byzantines reached their financial peak not at their military peak 1 century earlier with Basil Bulgaroktonos (around 1000A.D.) as most people would guess but around 1150-1170 A.D. that was the 2nd-3nd Crusade periods.
There were people there making huge fortunes out of all these wars. And there was a huge transfer of capital as well as know-how from Byzantium to Italian cities during that period and if some think 1204A.D. came too early, one may say sooner or later it would had come.
Byzantines were like modern large construction companies: they wanted to do projects of builtding skyscrapers by subcontracting the 100% of the actual job of building (i.e. constructing without owning a single cement-lorry and employing a single builder). -
Message 8
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 17th April 2009
In fact most of the stories we learn about that era are totally wrong even to the point of not knowing who won what.
The root cause of the crusades was not so much the muslim possession of Jerusalem (they were there already for centuries), not even the new Turkish leadership that initially was offensive to christian visitors in Jerusalem - in reality they quickly realised these were religious tourists and were brining money in so they had already changed attitudes. The root cause was the entrance of Seljuks in Minor Asia and the will of Byzantines to re-affirm their control in cental and eastern Minor Asia - but then even this second is still argued and I will explain why.
First of all, the so-called "catastrophic Matzikert defeat" was actually an easy Byzantine victory since despite Emperor Romanos despite having only half of his 40,000 men of that campaign, possibly less than 20,000 he beat the Seljuks capturing at once the fortress of Matzikert and rooting them in the following counter-attack battle. What had merely happened is that the aristocratic Doukas family that was plotting against Emperor Romanos, a (could-be great Emperor) simple guy that rose from the army ranks, had told their beloved son to undermine the campaign where he could, well this sonobic (Russian football player) had the idea to order in the end of the battle a sudden disorganised retreat which provoked chaos in the ranks. Soldiers regained their ranks later in the back but what had already happened is that a small military detachment was left isolated and some Turkish cavalry had seen the unexplainable for them chaotic scene and rushed in a last counter-attack and encircled that small regiment of men that happened to be... the Emperial guard!Not-at-all-suprising! The Emperor himself was captured - later to be exchanged for money and handed in to the traitors Doukas family by then in control of things with Michael Doukas as Emperor after a self-destructing civil war. He was blinded (old Roman military law for treason against the Empire) and imprisoned for life - the most unfaire treatment to a fair man that fought so hard for defending the Empire. So the Matzikert was far from a defeat, and certainly not even close to being any turning point had it not been for the events that followed.
Still, with Alexios Komnenos (who rose to throne being related to Doukas family by marriage in late 11th century) and the 1st Crusade and mainly with John Komnenos' efforts, of the last notably good Emperors most of Minor Asia was back and the army was back also in the Middle East ready to hit muslims had it not been for the general indifference for such a cause of Byzantine aristocrats and Crusaders (so much for fighting for religion) who also wanted merely to hold on to what they got in the first Crusade.
But then similarly (some 100 years after Matzikert) in Myriokefalo we read about a "catastrophic Byzantine deafeat" of the Army of John's son Emperor Manuel and the inability of Byzantines to get rid of the Seljuks. Well just like Matzikert, revising the battle one cannot find but a harsh battle between two very capable armies (by that time Turkish had evolved from the rather simplistic riders of Arlp Arslan), but completely indecisive and from what we understand it was rather the Turkish that had suffered most of the casualties, espcially apparent from the fact that Byzantines had found after the battle bodies of all men scalped (Turkish had different haircuts - face was always a problem as many Turkish by then were local populations of Minor Asia thus identical to Byzantines) and mutilated in the genitals (muslims were circumcised and Byzantines uncircumcised) and by that understood that Turkish wanted by that way of hiding their own losses to claim victory theirs. Again just like Matzikert, Myriokefalo was not itself anything close to being any "catastrophe", far also from being defeat (on the other way to claim victory over Turkish or Mongolic cavalry was something very complex as these riders would simply 'Parthianshotise' long before an emminent overall crushing thus retaining their forces - usually they were crushed only if encircled), it was the the events that preceded this time the battle: Manuel had spent the Empire's money and time and ressources in futile for strategic reasons but could-be lucrative in financial terms campaigns in central Europe, South Italy and even.... in an attack to ... Egypt (!!!) while at the same time leaving the Seljuks in central Minor Asia. By the time he went to solve that problem "he was already spent". One wonders what was the difficulty in merely continuing his father work and clearing Central-Eastern Minor Asia of Seljuk presence right from the beginning... well... the fact that at his time Byzantium reached its financial peak might tell you something: these guys made some serious money out of all that. And yes muslim Seljuks played their role there: Seljuks never stopped the commerce with the Middle East and had not imposed any heavy taxes (unlike the Empire!) while on the other hand they kept down the local Minor Asian families that in previous centuries had a greater influence to the Imperial throne: most of the Imperial army and thus its generals came from that region.
One also has to put into account many many very complicated details. How the Doukas took power by betrayal and civil war, how the Komnenoi established a stricly family-dynasty unlike previous Imperial tradition according to which the throne could be passed to any citizen aristocrat or not (Basil 150 years earliers had started as an orphan that rose in military ranks). Aristocratic families started having extended ties with central and western european aristocratic families - including from North Italian city-states something which explains why these cities had gained access to the extend of enjoying tax-free commerce inside the Empire while Byzantine merchants were virtualyl wiped-out by extra-taxation a measure that can only be judged as crazy (why so many Minor Asian christians simply went willingly to the side of muslim Seljuks and Ottomans you think?) - well crazy or not, the Italian cities had become the fiscal paradise for Byzantines and increasingly center of taking decisions. Who gave the ships for all these Crusades? And why the 1000 maritime tradition of Byzantines was not there to serve (for huge gains!) the Crusaders and it was the Italian cities? Proximity? Hmmm... quite naif to think so...
So inside all that highly complicated environment, yes you had Crusaders too. Like Matzikert and Myriokefalo retrospectively they gained a considerably greater importance for reasons of late developed western Europe seeing it as its first intercontinental expendition than what it was back then - whose main impact was merely the hatred they caused among local orthodox christians with their repeated treasons, bllind raids and barbarism and main event was the dissolution of the Empire (at a time Italian families had grown too rich to be able to take up directly the "Greeks" as they liked to call them - did not want to call them Romans).
I am searching all that idealism into all that affair but all I can find is half-illiterate priests preaching to the illiterate nobility of how to give half their property to finance their own campaign in the east - the money mainly ending up in Italian banks of course! Well yes there were people that believed all that but then so in WWI in WWII in Iraq wars and so on... -
Message 9
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Friday, 17th April 2009
As I recall. the Roman church preached several crusades before the end of the dark ages, and the crusade in the Holy Land was only one of them... and the only one that failed.
The crusade to wipe out the Albigensians (Cathars) was pursued with as much vigor and determination as any, and was victorious in that the Cathars and its religion (schism or heresy?) were destroyed completely. I don't think there is even a hint of the Cathar religion left anywhere.
The other crusade was not as bloody, but was pursued with as much zeal by those involved. That was the Christianization of the northern portions of Europe (Scandinavia and the Netherlands, as well as Britain and Ireland) and it, too, was successful.
The Crusade in the Middle East was successful initially, but as has been noted above, the Muslim Empire considered it a flea bite... an interruption of little significance, and brushed it away during the third crusade. -
Message 10
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
The Crusades , those famous wars waged by the Catholic Emperors and Popes on the Holy land of Palestine centuries ago , those military offensives ended in little significance and put lot of question marks about the "Dark Age" of Western culture and Catholic teachings.
Were those offensives justified ?, What were the real motives and how can we evaluate the Ethical element ?Ìý
I suspect the real motive was to get a lot of violent and land hungry barons out of Western Europe. You never knew, they might win some land from Paynims or Schismatics, and even if they didn't, their absence across the sea would contribute to peace back home.
It's a bit like Captain Hook (or one of his men) said viz the children and the crocodile "If they kill it we're so much the better. If it kills them, we're none the worse". -
Message 11
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
Erik
Sorry to correct you there wasnt any crusade against Scandinavia.When Denmark,Norway and Sweden was going over to cristendom was the Scandinavian viking expansion still in full swing.Knut the great(Canute) was a very devote christian.
You are probably confusing it with the crusade the Danes,German order and Sweden did against Venden(north Germany),the Prus(north Poland former east Prussia),the baltic states and Finland.
Your friend
Hasse -
Message 12
Posted by Vizzer aka U_numbers (U2011621) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
Good point Hasse.
You could also have pointed out to Erik that it was his namesake King Erik IX of Sweden, 'Saint Eric the Lawgiver', who allegedly led the First Swedish Crusade to convert the Finns from Paganism to Christianity. -
Message 13
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Saturday, 18th April 2009
Hi Vizzer
Quite I didnt think of that.
A funny thing is that the so called saintly rulers in Scandinavia.
St Knut in Denmark,St Olaf in Norway and St Erik in Sweden,all was killed in rebelion by their own people.
Hasse -
Message 14
Posted by U13884368 (U13884368) on Sunday, 19th April 2009
For me the Crusades demonstrated the difference in ethics between the Muslim generals and the Christian crusader generals.
When the Crusaders first took control of Jerusalem, they killed as many as they could including Jews and fellow Christians who did not agree with them.
When the Great Salahuddin regained Jerusalem, those same Crusaders expected the same fait they previously dished out. However the ethics of Wars which was implanted into Salahuddin ensured those who wanted to live under his rule were free to do so and free to worship as they wished. He also allowed people to leave in safety.
I think these types of ethics helped the Islamic Empire to spread as fast as it did. People were happy to live under its rules and were able to freely worship as they chose.
A very important event in History which the world should learn from. -
Message 15
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Monday, 20th April 2009
The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Christian Europe mainly against Muslims for no justified reason. Crusaders took vows and were granted an indulgence for past sins (how ridiculous), some modern historians in the West expressed moral outrage on the Crusades , Sir Steven Runciman wrote a resounding condemnation ; "high ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed , the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God" , religious devotion and godly savagery.
On the 1st. crusade led by Pope Urban II in 1099 , the Crusades entered Jerusalim the Holy city of Palestine , they proceeded to massacre civilians and pillaged or destroyed mosques the city itself. They commited large-scale atrocities including the cannibalism.
The Crusades is actually a byword for barbarism and aggression in contradiction of all teachings of the Christ. The most fuuny thing , Malicious Popes were leading the invading armies on all the 9 Crusades waged on Palestine. -
Message 16
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 20th April 2009
When the Crusaders first took control of Jerusalem, they killed as many as they could including Jews and fellow Christians who did not agree with them.
When the Great Salahuddin regained Jerusalem, those same Crusaders expected the same fait they previously dished out. However the ethics of Wars which was implanted into Salahuddin ensured those who wanted to live under his rule were free to do so and free to worship as they wished. He also allowed people to leave in safety.Ìý
But one crucial difference is that the crusaders were forced to capture Jerusalem, yet Saladin's forces negotiated a surrender.
It was expected that a city which resisted would be raped, looted and butchered - this was just as much an expectation in the muslim world as it was in the chrstian world at the time.
Saladin does stand out as a little more enlightened, but he does so in comparison to his contemporary muslim leaders, not just compared to christians. Just as Fredrick II was more enlightened than many of his christian contempories when he negotiated rights for christians in Jerusalem rather than the typical crusading. Both valued trade and a decent tax base more than mere pillaging.
I think these types of ethics helped the Islamic Empire to spread as fast as it did. People were happy to live under its rules and were able to freely worship as they chose.Ìý
Initially Islam was reserved as a religion for the conquoring arabs - any of the colonised Syrains/Iraqis etc converting was seen as lost taxes! It's spread was mainly helped by the Byzantine and Sassanian empires having ruined each other militarily and financially. I'm sure many of the new Ummayid citizens were more keen on a ruler who could keep their lands peaceful - which in the C7th context meant fighting in your enemy's territory to stop him being in yours.
Not being muslim still left one a second class citizen (restrictions on dress, transport, extra taxes) and vulnerable to persecution which sporadically took off whenever a caliph needed a popularity boost or had lost a war. -
Message 17
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Monday, 20th April 2009
You are probably confusing it with the crusade the Danes,German order and Sweden did against Venden(north Germany),the Prus(north Poland former east Prussia),the baltic states and Finland. Ìý
Some Slav rulers also got in on the act.
Konigsberg was so named in honour of a King of Bohemia sporting the very Germanic name of Premysl Otokar II (spelling not guaranteed) who fought in Prussia as an ally of the Teutonic Knights.
Kings of Poland also fought in Prussia and against pagan Slavs in Pomerania etc. -
Message 18
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Monday, 20th April 2009
Not being muslim still left one a second class citizen (restrictions on dress, transport, extra taxes) and vulnerable to persecution which sporadically took off whenever a caliph needed a popularity boost or had lost a war. Ìý
How does that compare with what Moslems (or Jews ftm) got on the Christian side of the fence? -
Message 19
Posted by Erik Lindsay (U231970) on Monday, 20th April 2009
I'm not implying a religious war was waged against the Scandinavian or Teutonic population Hasse - I never felt that a crusade had to be an armed conflict in order to be considered a crusade. Early in the middle ages, there was definitely a religious invasion taking place throughout northern Europe and the offshore islands - not a crusade involving marching armies and slaughter, but a crusade nonetheless. It resulted in the Christianization of the entire European continent, hence was a success.
-
Message 20
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
How does that compare with what Moslems (or Jews ftm) got on the Christian side of the fence?Ìý
Jews had a hard time in most of Europe, but it varied with place and time. During expulsions from western Europe they were welcomed by Poland. They also face a double-whammy of persecution as they were limited to what jobs they could do. Moneylending was one, so they faced hatred for that as well as distrust for being non-Christian. But it did vary depending on where in Christendom they were and who was ruling at the time. In Rome, for instance, particularly hard-line popes made them live in ghettos. Edward I ordered many of them killed in a papally inspired pogrom.
As for muslims, the only places I've read about their conditions are Spain and Sicily. In Spain they were pretty much the mirror image of conditions for Christians in muslim Spain (one side often retaliated for excesses of the other). In Sicily they fared better.
Historically, the "saracens" had been seen as savages by the west. More recent scholarship has turned that on its head with civilized muslim states being terrorized by barbaric crusaders (and with a great deal of evidence to support much of that). But the emphasis on the civilization of the middle east often forgets that what passed for the height of civilization then is far from what we think of it today. Totalitarian rule, over-whelming armed force was used to repress difficult subjects and was followed by reprisal massacres. Such were the norm for the day, in both Christendom and muslim lands. -
Message 21
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 21st April 2009
Mike of course being a christian in muslim territory was preferencial to being muslim in christian territory but in that we mainly mean the catholics. Orthodox despite having initiated the first 3 crusades for their own political reasons were never into crusading and I think they were very much against that notion, something that filled with anger the illiterate western crusaders that could not comprehend these "eastern lazy educated christians" and their lack of will to participate in the campaigns (for them the notion of crusading was foreign and often seen as immoral). Well that was on the lower levels, on the higher level indeed the Emperor John Komnenos had reconquered most of Minor Asia pushing to the east the Seljuks and was enterring into modern day Lebanon and Syria but there while he asked aid from Crusaders he did not get any response as Crusaders - always nominally under the Emperors' service no matter if feudal lords or kings - did not want any more to serve the Emperor's plans but work freelance!
Also one has to notice that Crusades were not one unified period, or one single series of events or one particular catholic plan etc. It is rather a collection of completely different and unrelated events. One can say that only the first 3 Crusades can be by and large seen under the same umbrella, these where the Crusades initiated by the Eastern Romans and in which the nominal leader (nominal of course because things happened quite differently even since the 1st Crusade where feudal leaders conquered in the name of themselves not of the Emperor!) was the Roman Emperor. From the 4th Crusade we see a purely Italic initiative and only a Byzantine wannabe emperor jumping later on the bandwagon in hope of getting to the throne. However, one has to note that already earlier than the 1st Crusade, the Spanish christian kings had been on something very close to a Crusade (and can be seen as Crusades of course) when waging their wars against the muslim moorish states of the southern peninsula and of course were the inspiration to the Crusades in the east. From there on the other Crusades such as against the Catharas or in the Baltic against pagans and Orthodox are clearly different and separate events with the only link existing with other Crusades the "excuse", i.e. the christianisation of some area.
Hence for me it is wrong to see all these events under one common series of events. -
Message 22
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Thursday, 23rd April 2009
Such an interesting Crusade , a short while after the failure of the 4 successive Crusades to capture Jerusalim . Came on the stage on 1212 what was called "the Children's Crusade" .
When an outburst of the old popular enthusiasm led a gathering of children in France and Germany, which Pope Innocent III interpreted as a proof from heaven to their unworthy elders. The leader of the French army Stephen led 30,000 children. The leader of the German army Nicholas led 7,000 children. The two armies marched on their way to Palestine. But unfortunately, none of the combatant children actually reached.Those who didn't return home or settled along the route to Jerusalim either died from shipwreck or hunger, or were sold into slavery along the coast of North Africa. Madness of the clergy !! wasn't it ? -
Message 23
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Wednesday, 29th April 2009
cloudyj , Why the Jews had a hard time in most of Christian Europe while nowadays they have an unprecedented love connection ? What caused this 180 degrees deviation ? .
-
Message 24
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
It may have been largely mythical, at least as far as the involvement of children is concerned. See s_Crusade
What really happened seems to have been a set of "popular" crusades a bit like those of Peter the Hermit and others a century earlier - and with much the same result. It was probably triggered by the ill-success of recent crusades led by the kings of Europe, reviving the notion that "Christ's poor" should be the ones to do it.
No doubt some of these self-appointed crusaders took their families with them (this happened with armies as late as the Napoleonic Wars) but it seems doubtful whether it was really a children's movement in any real sense. -
Message 25
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Thursday, 30th April 2009
Re23: Seveskies, while in general it holds true it is not exactly the whole truth. In the Balkans Jewish had been staunch Ottomanophiles for centuries, provoked mass-murders to clear out the "dangerous Greeks" (the only group along with Armenians in the east that could beat them in affairs in what was besides them a naif Ottoman Empire), and the mere fact that 9 out of 10 New-Turkish were not Turkish, nor muslims but Donmesh (ex-Jewish sect turned muslim in appearence), the main responsibles for the Greek, Armenian and Assyrochaldean genocides in Minor Asia could only be revealing of Jewish attitudes. Even today one cannot but see that Jewish prefer 1000 times more Turkey than the likes of Greece, Bulgaria or... Serbia (Albright's family was saved in WWII by Serbians, she was not only sending an army to punish them for being "bad" but she was as fanatic as she would be on that).
So we should not over-generalise. We should not do that also for the various jewish groups that are disparate, and very diverse (for example Romaniotes Jewish people - the traditional Jewish people of Greece - contrary to Ladinos, never participated in any of the above events, on the contrary they remained always more friendly to Greek with which they associated themselves to the extend of gathering the hatred of Ladinos). -
Message 26
Posted by laudian (U13735323) on Monday, 4th May 2009
And they {Eastern Rome} had not such a problem dealing with the Seljuks in eastern Asia Minor.Ìý
Again I beg to differ. In 1070, or there abouts the Eastern Romans suffered a catastrophic defeat at Manzikert against the Turks. This caused ,eventually, the loss of the Roman hinterland and deprived them both of money and men. After this, coupled with the Western Crusade disaster of 1215, { when the Crusaders sacked Constantinople,} Constantinople started on a gradual ,but steady decline. There was a constant state of open war between the West and the Turkish controlled East till the defeat of the Turks outside Vienna by Charles Edward Stuart's grandad in 1688/9.
The lack of sympathy and positive help towards Constantinople,by the West, bordered on self destruction. -
Message 27
Posted by U13884368 (U13884368) on Monday, 4th May 2009
But one crucial difference is that the crusaders were forced to capture Jerusalem, yet Saladin's forces negotiated a surrender.
It was expected that a city which resisted would be raped, looted and butchered - this was just as much an expectation in the muslim world as it was in the chrstian world at the time. " Ìý
The crucial difference you talk about was only achieved with the Crusaders deciding it was not in their interest to continue fighting as they were on the brink of defeat. Even once Jerusalem was surrendered many Christians living there thought they would be killed not for resisting but for revenge for the way the previous crusaders acted. Some eye witness reports saying blood was up to the knees and this was blood included Jewish and Christian blood.
Not being muslim still left one a second class citizen (restrictions on dress, transport, extra taxes) and vulnerable to persecution which sporadically took off whenever a caliph needed a popularity boost or had lost a war Ìý
This is a bit unfair and very innaccurate. The Muslim tax forced upon Non-Muslims was considerably less than the tax Muslims paid. Also under this tax the Non-Muslims had guaranteed protection and did not have to worry about taking up arms if a another war began. All other restrictions were similiar to the ones put on Muslims.
This is what makes Salahuddin the greatest leader of his time. The man defied all odds and united the Islamic world and defied all assumptions in the way he treated his caputures and enemies. In the third Crusade once he knew Richard the Lionheart was ill he sent him a fruit basket, showing his appreciation of another leader even when he was on his way to capture Jerusalem. -
Message 28
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Sevenskies,
Apologies for not replying earlier.
Why the Jews had a hard time in most of Christian Europe while nowadays they have an unprecedented love connection ? What caused this 180 degrees deviation ?Ìý
I'll leave Nick to explain the Balkans attitude, but in Western Europe I think the main thrust in accepting Europe's Jews was the enlightenment: One's religious identity eventually became less relevant than one's national identity. As societies secularized, it didn't matter so much to Christians that there were non-christians in their midst.
Obviously anti-semitism never really went away (and sadly still persists today). But the revulsion against the holocaust generally put an end to the idea of exterminating whole groups. In one sense this reflects the C17th and C18th growing disgust with the atrocities carried out during the religious wars between protestants and catholics. The idea of killing fellow christians for the sake of religion became so abhorrent that it spilled over into tolerance of other religions. Admittedly not tolerance that we'd recognize today, but it was a start. -
Message 29
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
<quote>The crucial difference you talk about was only achieved with the Crusaders deciding it was not in their interest to continue fighting as they were on the brink of defeat.</quote>
That was why they surrendered, but that doesn't change the fact that cities which surrendered were usually spared, whilst cities which resisted were usually sacked. This was a common tradition amongst muslims and christians alike. It was the payoff for the troops who risked their lives to storm a city and also served as a warning to other cities to not resist. Saladin's attitude towards captured cities was often at odds with his fellow muslims, and even he failed to stop his troops sacking cities such as Sinjar.
<quote>This is a bit unfair and very innaccurate. The Muslim tax forced upon Non-Muslims was considerably less than the tax Muslims paid. Also under this tax the Non-Muslims had guaranteed protection and did not have to worry about taking up arms if a another war began. All other restrictions were similiar to the ones put on Muslims.</quote>
Things obviously varied with time and place, but generally muslims paid less tax which was why the early caliphate resisted allowing conversion to Islam. Muslims instead had other impositions such as serving in the army. But in a warlike age, a lot of money could be made in war. The tax didn't guarantee the safety of non-muslims any more than paying exhorbitant taxes guaranteed the safety of Jews in England. If the king needed a scapegoat for failings elsewhere in society, then christians and jews got killed.
<quote>This is what makes Salahuddin the greatest leader of his time. The man defied all odds and united the Islamic world</quote>
Greatest leader? He certainly stands far above many of the local princes in the middle east (christian or muslim), but I'm sure Nik will name a Byzantine emperor who he thinks was better. Within a generation the emperor Frederick II stands out equally amongst his contemporaries for enlightened government in Sicily. A generation earlier, Roger II of Sicily created a magnificent state which drew on norman, arabic and byzantine cultural traditions.
Wikipedia (yes, I know it can be dodgy) has some interesting quotes about the tolerant nature of Sicilian society:
>quote>and defied all assumptions in the way he treated his caputures and enemies</quote>
Little acts of chivalry occurred all the time. Saladin certainly wasn't above enslaving the common soldiers who fell into his hands. Rich powerful leaders were worth far more alive for the ransom money than killing them. -
Message 30
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
Cloudji, yes Saladin was one great figure of his times and stands out in those harsh times for his stance, I do not know if he was the greatest, it depends on what times are we talking about (mid-12th century? 11th and 13th?). In late 10 early 11th century certainly Basil Bulgaroktonos stands out as by far the most successful militarily and politically (despite his grave error of initiating tax reductions to Italians - of course after the demand of local Byzantine aristocrats that had found there a... fiscal paradise). In 11th century people considered Emmanuel Komnenos as the great Emperor, far above anyone (well, at least in the christian world) but for me Emmanuel was not any great, it was his father John Komnenos that was a great Emperor - and that said I am not at all a fan of the Komnenoi, personally I see them as the Emperors that provoked the difficult to explain and not at all inevitable downfall of the Empire.
And there I would like to answer to mes.26 by Laudian: Laudian I am really tired of seeing that the story of Eastern Romans (who at their core were basically mostly Greeks, Armenians and Kappadocians) is continuously bashed in the sense "let us jump 1000 years... note 2-3 "great" defeats and go directly to the Renaissance":
Well no, surprise! Matzikert was a very very easy victory for Eastern Romans despite they suffered repeated treason and having half their initial army on spot. However the second treason meant that Emperor Romanos was left alone and captured as hostage by Seljuks - the treason was organised by the fraction that supported the Komneni family which managed to rise to the throne only after a civil war that created the chaos that permitted Seljuks nearly 2 decades after the battle to enter an unprotected Minor Asia. It goes without saying that the Komneni fraction had no interests in the east and were not so sad as people think to see Seljuks ruling up to the central part of Minor Asia and became alarmed only when the latter progressed to the west where they stopped them. Funny thing to say but not only the Seljuks' conquests in Minor Asia did not reduce the money of the Empire but - surprise! - the Empire became much richer as Seljuks did not tax much commerce passing from there (thus no price changes), while the Empire had halved their military and civil expenses!!! Perhaps that is why Emmanuel some 100 years later was not so in a hurry to attack them and he did it more for restoring authority over the "Empire's lands" rather than "for the Empire's finances".
The other "great defeat" of Romans (under Emanuel, 100 years later), the "Myriokefalon" is again actually a Roman victory - otherwise Seljuks would not mutilate the genitals and cut the scalps of all dead soldiers in order to hide their own disproportionate number of dead soldiers in comparison to Romans. However, again the battle did not produce a clear result that Emmanuel wished, the Seljuk army was not destroyed as he had hoped and thus when he returned in Konstantinople, not having more money (he had already spent them on a campaign in .... Egypt - so much pressed he was for Minor Asia!!!) he "admitted failure".
So.... what we certainly should not do is to judge from the end result (i.e. 400 years later!!!!) those events! Imagine 400 years ago we had a rough idea of what is ... America and we did not even know Australia (know with several millions population!). Now imagine that it took 400 years for Seljuks-Ottomans to prevail in Minor Asia and they finally did it only after Crusaders of the 4th Crusade dissolved the Empire breaking it into tiny weak feuds. -
Message 31
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 5th May 2009
The other "great defeat" of Romans (under Emanuel, 100 years later), the "Myriokefalon" is again actually a Roman victory - otherwise Seljuks would not mutilate the genitals and cut the scalps of all dead soldiers in order to hide their own disproportionate number of dead soldiers in comparison to Romans. However, again the battle did not produce a clear result that Emmanuel wished, the Seljuk army was not destroyed as he had hoped and thus when he returned in Konstantinople, not having more money (he had already spent them on a campaign in .... Egypt - so much pressed he was for Minor Asia!!!) he "admitted failure".Ìý
This is beginning to sound like the cake-shop scene in Eric Frank Russell's "Wasp", where the shopkeeper says that "For years we have been making triumphant retreats before a demoralised enemy who is advancing in utter disorder". -
Message 32
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
There is an ancient question that have no answer yet though it is already almost 64 years old.
Was it possible that the US president at the end of WW2 would order A-bombing Germany instead of Japan ( or Germany together with Japan ) ?
This question is so important because at the time of the bombing Japan was already defeated and represent absolutely no threat to the allied forces. The bombing itself was a pure LIVE TEST lacking any miliraty necessity. The second bomb was to re-affirm the results of the first one , did it came to the mind of the US president Hary Truman that the second test may be dropped over one of Germany's main cities and in that case he would gain wider reputation ?
This thought is quite irritating . Was it possible or not ? . -
Message 33
Posted by Backtothedarkplace (U2955180) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
Germany had surrendered. You could have bombed it but there would have been questions asked in the house. If Germany had still been fighting then they would have got both of them. No question in my mind at all.
But in any case Japan hadnt surrendered and it was showing no real signs of wanting to surrender. To try and put it in context.
A while ago , about three months I think, the American government put in an order for a new stock of Purple Hearts, this is the medal that the Americans give to any soldier wounded in action.
They had managed every war since 1945 on the stock laid in in 1944 to be ready for the invasion of Japan. Thats a lot of wars and a lot of wounded all given a medal from a stock intended for one campaign.
The bombs saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of allied servicemen and women and incidentally the lives of millions of Japanese. -
Message 34
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
There is an ancient question that have no answer yet though it is already almost 64 years old.
Ìý
Actually I think you'll find this question has every answer under the sun.
Was it possible that the US president at the end of WW2 would order A-bombing Germany instead of Japan ( or Germany together with Japan ) ?Ìý
Mind if I just clarify your language before answering? Because a lot of the answer depends very heavily on how you've asked the question.
It certainly was POSSIBLE, just as it was possible that Stalin could have forgiven Germany and decided to retire and open a theme park dedicated to the glories of Capitalism.
What I think you're asking is was it PROBABLE or REALISTIC. The answer to that really depends on when the bombs were ready. What targets were still available and how the Soviets would have reacted to a bomb being dropped on their front. IF atomic weapons were available by 1944 then they'd almost certainly have been used, but by 1945 I think the useful scope for deployment was becoming tactically limited.
This question is so important because at the time of the bombing Japan was already defeated and represent absolutely no threat to the allied forces.Ìý
Not really, although pushed out of most of its island empire, the bulk of Japanese forces still occupied huge swathes of China and the whole of Korea. The first bomb was dropped BEFORE the Soviets declared war. The Japanese government certainly refused to believe they were beaten - the war papers have been published and show nothing even resembling a serious discussion about surrendering. Had the allies offered terms (and remember that the Japanese were determined to hold on to large parts of China and Korea) then I think they'd have gone down the route of Nazi Germany a couple of decades later and had another go at colonial conquest. So, no real outside threat in 1945 unless of course you were Chinese or Korean, or any other non-Japanese in their empire. But they would probably have been a very real threat again by 1960.
The bombing itself was a pure LIVE TEST lacking any miliraty necessity. The second bomb was to re-affirm the results of the first oneÌý
Simply put: No, you're wrong. The Japanese had to be defeated, they were still determinedly fighting a war and the bombs probably helped stop that.
There's a persistant myth that the Japanese were on the point of surrendering based on an advance via the Swedish government. This represented only a minority fraction of the government. As events unfolded following Hiroshima, the Japanese military still refused to consider peace (even though one minister was now talking about it) and planned a coup against those who did want to surrender. After Nagasaki, the Japanese government were still split 50-50 on surrender/continuing the war. Finally the Emperor came out for peace a full 4 days after the second bomb was dropped and the Soviets had declared war.
Even then with the Emperor having publicly surrendered, a fraction within the Japanese army launched a coup which had it spread would have maintained Japan in the war for months longer.
did it came to the mind of the US president Hary Truman that the second test may be dropped over one of Germany's main cities and in that case he would gain wider reputation ?
Ìý
There's no record of it ever having crossed his mind, and why would it? The war with Germany was definitely over. Despite a few guerillas in the hinterlands, Germany was showing no signs of resisting.
This thought is quite irritating .Ìý
Why's it irritating? There was no intention among the US command to bomb a surrendered Germany. Perhaps it's irritating because there are some on the net who would like to cast the US as an evil ogre, yet have no evidence to support their theory?
Was it possible or not ? . Ìý
Again, it is possible that I'm a shape-changing lizard from planet Zog, here to mess with tiny human minds because I resent your ability to see the colour blue, but it would be ludicrous to base any history on such wild hypothesis. Sorry to keep banging on at this point, but I like reading pseudo-history and it's amazing how a theoretical possibility on page 6 is later claimed as a hard cold definitive by page 50. Possible certainly doesn't mean probable, and should never be used as an excuse to say something did happen. -
Message 35
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
There is an ancient question that have no answer yet though it is already almost 64 years old.
Was it possible that the US president at the end of WW2 would order A-bombing Germany instead of Japan ( or Germany together with Japan ) ?Ìý
Of course - if the A-Bomb had become available while Germany was still in the war. Why would he not use it? -
Message 36
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 7th May 2009
Re: Message 34.
Cloudyj,
I thank you for this message. It describes the same answers I would give and I fully support all what you wrote in this message especially about the Japanese last days of the war.
I read (and if I had time I would seek it back that the A-Bomb for Germany was foreseen). It was only that the "conditions" for dropping the bomb weren't "happening". I mean the need was avoided by the rapid changing circumstances of the last days of the war in Europe. Excuse me for not to be able to explain it better.
Warm regards and with esteem,
Paul. -
Message 37
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 38
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 39
This posting has been hidden during moderation because it broke the in some way.
-
Message 40
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 10th May 2009
Agree with him or not Sevenskies sometimes hits the nail with rare remarks such as what he said about Americans culturally (i.e. even racially) being much more prone to bomb the Japanese than the Germans. True 100%.
But first I will play the devils' advocate here. Americans had finally agreed in 1942 with the British to scrape the initial plan to make the Germans a non-industrialised, agricultural and poor nation understanding that in the coming Cold War they would need an industrialised Germany to produce all the civil products that their own industries would not produce since they would be highly turned on the military applications. Americans were quick to apply this British plan for Japan too. Therefore in both cases Americans and allies in general simply avoided to bomb industrial facilities. I had done in the past extensive research and was amazed to find out that they had managed to bomb all cities aiming particularly at civilians, residential areas and infrastruture like roads and railways but they went to great lengths to avoid bombing the indsutries. While 80% of German cities and infrastructure were bombed, only 5% of German huge over-inflated industries were bombed!!!! Germany at the end of the war in 1944 beaten and as-if destroyed was much more industrialised than at the start of the war in 1940 and multiple times more industrialised than in 1930s or 1910s. The mere fact that they had bombed the infrastructure along with a desperate population to rebuilt their lifes created an amazing and very rare situation of rapid development - and that is what happened of course, not only in Germany but in Japan (for Japan I have no percentages of industries being bombed, but then the two atomic bombs aimed the cities not any particular industries - neither Hiroshima nor Nagshaki were the most important industrial cities of Japan anyway).
Now, with Russians looming it was much more prudent to test their bombs on isolated, far out of the center of the world, Japanese than on Germans who were at the heart of Europe. Americans were aiming to enter Europe more as showmen rather than black avengers or something. They had to apply a propaganda of "our system is better than the one of Russians" and certainly in that an atomic bomb at the heart of Europe would not be any aid.
However I really do believe that there was some racial sympathies there with the Germans that were completely absent with the Japanese who were much more alien to Americans. And that goes not only for Americans but for British too. I will give once again the paradigm of Greece which I know best. Well if you think that the British did not negotiate with the Germans ... FALSE... they negotiated and pleaded them to tell them when they would leave Greece so they can enter right the day after bringing their Greek-politian-team to impose (the same tha rules the country till today and led/leads it from the one disgrace to another, no wonder!): as an exchange the British would provide full cover for Germans manipulating the Greek resistance groups in order not to attack the Germans - the British aid was crucial in protecting Germans since both left wing and right wing despite their differences were both willing and able to let no German leave Greece alive.
So nobody can ever say that the racial part did not play any role there. British would enter anyway, Germans killed or not - in fact it would create an even more chaotic situation that suited them - afterall they would have more reasons to explain their presence there (as liberators aiding Greeks cleaning up and flushing the Germans). However, British same as racist as Germans towards Greeks, considering them inferior would just not tolerate Greeks killing Germans. -
Message 41
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Monday, 11th May 2009
I thank you for this message.Ìý
Paul, gald someone appreciates my posts, especially as I've been modded in message 39 for making straight forward historical comments with a genuine polite question!
I read (and if I had time I would seek it back that the A-Bomb for Germany was foreseen). It was only that the "conditions" for dropping the bomb weren't "happening". I mean the need was avoided by the rapid changing circumstances of the last days of the war in Europe. Excuse me for not to be able to explain it better.Ìý
I think that's the major difference. What target would have been useful in early 1945? The fast pace of the allied advance meant that almost anywhere was within the "tactical" zone of operations, whereas the atomic bombs were used as strategic weapons. Had they been available in 1943-44, then I could imagine Germany being bombed in the same way Japan was.
Sevenskies,
I'll try again with what I wrote in the modded message:
Prior to the Hiroshima bomb the Japanese government had been issued with an ultimatum known as the Potsdam Declaration which threatened Japan with utter destruction unless she surrendered. The Japanese rejected this wholesale. There had been a discussion about ending the war, but that was far, far different to one talking of surrender - it fully expected Japan to keep her empire in Korea and China.
After Hiroshima the Potdam Declaration was discussed: P.M. Suzuki (with the Emperor's backing) and foriegn minister Togo were openly for surrender, but were opposed by the other of the "Big Six" (the Supreme War Council) who favoured a military victory which would allow them to negotiate terms with the allies. Even after Nagasaki, the Counil still split 3-3 with the militarists hoping for a negotiated settlement.
When the Emperor publicly weighed following the abortive coup, the Japanes government conceded surrender.
Given that timeline, I don't see how a repeated pronunciation of the Potsdam Declaration could have changed anything. All the War Council were well aware of it and its terms. Who's mind would have been changed by it being reitereated by the allies?
Andrew,
Since I've been modded in message 39, firstly I'll apologise to whoever I've upset, but secondly, is there any chance of being told how my message broke the rules? The email merely restates the rules, not which one has been broken or how. Thanks!
I know the atomic bombs are a little off-topic, but surely we've only swereved into a different area of history? -
Message 42
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Tuesday, 12th May 2009
Why should there have been any warning? After the first 1000-bomber raid on Tokyo, nobody paused to threaten another if they didn't give in. It was simply taken for granted that there'd be raid after raid until they did. Why should it have been any different with the A-bomb, which was, after all, only a "1000-bomber raid" compressed into a single bomb.
- As for Germany , there seems many doubts about the prabability of A-bombing it . Ìý
Ditto.
There were no moral qualms about the raid on Dresden, and an A-bombing would merely have been "Dresden" done with one bomb. Not many moral issues arose at the time, as opposed to being raised in hindsight.
Chemical and biological weaposne were not used because they weren't likely to be noticeably more efficacious than the conventional bombs already being used. The A-bomb was orders of magnitude more powerful , so it did get used. -
Message 43
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Hi Cloudy,
If you are unsure why the message got modded just reply to the mail you got and someone will get back to you.
Cheers
Andrew -
Message 44
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
They "modded" me too, but I think what they objected to was the quotes from what I was replying to.
I've redone my message without the quotes and will await events. -
Message 45
Posted by Andrew Host (U1683626) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Hi all,
On a general note - when referring to the Japanese people can you please call them just that - Japanese and not shorten it. The shortened version, coming as it does from WWII slang, carries derogatory overtones.
Many thanks
Andrew -
Message 46
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
If you are unsure why the message got modded just reply to the mail you got and someone will get back to you.
Ìý
Thanks Andrew, I did just that and your colleague was very helpful in explaining why. It was the quoting of the shortened version of Japanese.
It gave me a chance to put a longer post up in replacement.
Mike,
I agree with a lot of what you say, the level of animosity towards the enemy was such that probably the US and certainly the UK would have dropped everything they could find on Germany and Japan.
The effects of the atomic bombs whilst devastating were maybe double in a sinlge event what intensive bombing did over a few days. Hiroshima certainly suffered less bombing overall than Tokyo. Something which probably shouldn't be forgotten when looking at the casualties. After all, the equation was what way of winning teh war cost fewest allied casualties (and retrospectively certainly saved many more Japanese civilians from the horrors of firestorms, conventional warfare and being turned into human bobs by their own government. Subsequent deaths from diseases linked to radioactive contamination are surprisingly low. -
Message 47
Posted by petaluma (U10056951) on Wednesday, 13th May 2009
Of the Atom bomb, at the time many scientists around 50/50 who worked on the bomb thought it a possibility that it would set off a chain reaction and in fact destroy the world, as today the yes/no by today's scientists re. global warning. Be assured at the time, during any time during WW2 the atom bomb would have been used on any target thought to end the war. Daily during the war there was talk of Secret Weapons theirs and ours, Japan was warned of a very destructive weapon, still took two bombs with days between both plus days afterwards. Regardless of anything else saved lives for both, and ended a lot of suffering. The Allies PoWs in Japan certainly greeted it, they can say of daily seeing Japanese women and children practicing attack with sharpened bamboo stakes. One has to understand the Japanese at the time to fully understand them, second guessing never solved or proved any thing.
-
Message 48
Posted by sevenskies (U13875542) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
petaluma , the bomb was tested 3 weeks before the LIVE TESTING on civilians. It's damage was well recognised and understood, their was no possibility of an endless chain reaction.
Again , the Allies were certain of Japan's eventual surrender in a matter of days, but the US president wanted to start his term by an explosive blow-up. He decided to use the bomb and in his mind a half dozen more bombs to be dropped over other Japanese cities.
In history books and analysis, the US Generals insist that they've saved lives by killing hundreds of thousands civilians. Well , nothing can be more ridiculous. If that was true , what the second bomb was dropped for ? , wasn't it more ethical to warn the Japanese that if they don't surrender in a certain time there will be more atomics showering their people ?
As for the scientists in Los Alamos ,they were in great joy the mission was accomplished , but the greater joy was of the US president that such a dramatic assault was his privilege instead of his predecessor's.
Bombing civilians by A-bombs must be worldwidely condemned. No matter how the military justify it. -
Message 49
Posted by Mikestone8 (U13249270) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
wasn't it more ethical to warn the Japanese that if they don't surrender in a certain time there will be more atomics showering their people ?Ìý
There was no such warning after (or before) tthe first 1000-bomber raid on Tokyo. It was simply taken for granted that whtever capabilitries we had would be used, and continue to be used until they actually surrendered - not until somebody thought they might be on the point of doing so- Similarly, 1000-bomber raids on Germany continued until the advance of the Allied armies meant there were virtually no unoccupied places left to bomb. That's the way things worked in WW2, and there was no reason to expect the A-bomb to be used any differently.
Bombing civilians by A-bombs must be worldwidely condemned. No matter how the military justify it. Ìý
A case can be made that any and all bombing of civilians should be condemned. But if it was to be allowed at all - a decision taken by both sides in WW2 long before 1945 - there would seem no reason to single out a particular weapon to condemn. All the A-bomb did was to inflict with one bomb the same amount of death and destruction previously inflicted with several thousand smaller ones.
Personally I regret all the war deaths on both sides - but I see no particular reason to grieve more for the dead of those two cities than for others, merely because they were killed by a new and unusual weapon. To do so is a bit like those silly torturers who say "We'd never pull fingernails out, but waterboarding is ok".
Either area bombing is allowable or it isn't. If it is, there is little point quibbling over the particular weapons to be used. -
Message 50
Posted by cloudyj (U1773646) on Thursday, 14th May 2009
Sevenskies, you don't seem to have read any of my posts on this...
Again , the Allies were certain of Japan's eventual surrender in a matter of days, but the US president wanted to start his term by an explosive blow-up. He decided to use the bomb and in his mind a half dozen more bombs to be dropped over other Japanese cities. Ìý
How? Prior to the dropping of the bombs, the Japanese had no intention of surrendering, so how did the allies know Japan would surrender in days when the Japanese government was planning a long campaign of armed defence?
If you know of documents or primary sources which show that Japan would be willing to surrender without giving up conquored territory then please share them with us.
If that was true , what the second bomb was dropped for ? , wasn't it more ethical to warn the Japanese that if they don't surrender in a certain time there will be more atomics showering their people ?
Ìý
You've completely ignored the fact that the allies did almost exactly what you say they should have done.
The Potsdam Declaration demanded Japanese surrender and told them there would be consequences, the Japanese refused and the first atomic bomb was dropped. Despite the consequences at Hiroshima, the Japanese discussed the possibility of surrender and the likely consequences of refusal then rejected the idea. At the forefront of the discussion was the Allied ultimatum and the fate of Hiroshima. All another statement would have done would be to tell the Japanese about something they already knew and were actively discussing.
Even after the second bomb, half the government determined to resist and only the army's loyalty to the Emperor caused the pro-continuing-the-war coup to collapse.
In history books and analysis, the US Generals insist that they've saved lives by killing hundreds of thousands civilians. Well , nothing can be more ridiculous.Ìý
How is it ridiculous? Both atomic bombs killed about 220,000 Japanese. The battle of Okinawa killed 280,000 Japanese, over half of them civilians. And let's not forget that the Japanese private was a civilian conscripted into the army, not a volunteer. War is grim, and lots of people die. The quicker it ended, the fewer people would die.
but the greater joy was of the US president that such a dramatic assault was his privilege instead of his predecessor's.
Ìý
Really? In his diary he wrote:
"We have discovered the most terrible bomb in the history of the world. It may be the fire destruction prophesied in the Euphrates Valley Era, after Noah and his fabulous Ark."
Bombing civilians by A-bombs must be worldwidely condemned.Ìý
Why? Is it worse than conventional bombing? Fire-bombing? Shelling them with aertillery whilst their soldiers try to defend the city? I mean they're all just as tragically dead reagrdless of the means surely?
Dead civilians are a tragedy, no denying that. But decisions in war are often based on the least abd outcomes, not the best outcomes.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Ìýto take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Â鶹ԼÅÄ iD
Â鶹ԼÅÄ navigation
Â鶹ԼÅÄ links
Â鶹ԼÅÄ Â© 2014 The Â鶹ԼÅÄ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.