Comments by "Jim Taylor" (@jimtaylor294) on "“IT WASN’T A REAL CRIME!” The Counter-Arguments to Operation Keelhaul E3" video.
-
@mikereger1186 That's rather too relativist for me, and my point was upon how - by the standards of the time and situation - the allies [as the UK was involved] had a simple choice to make re' Japan, and chose the one that was expected - and for once also did - to have the lowest bodycount.
I should also note that the key difference [ideology wise] between [Classical] Liberalism and Authoritarianism, is that the former advocates for vicarious use of force, and in the case of war to use the actions of your enemy to set the precedent. An Authoritarian by contrast will capriciously use force, for show or to enforce their personal / ideological will.
It's no coincidence that the [western] allies spent most of WWII - and WWI before it - responding to their enemies precedent, instead of setting it.
For example: the RAF had access to plentiful supplies of Mustard Gas throughout WWII, and the Germans [who had built up Chlorine Gas & Sarin stocks in the '30's] knew it. Hitler and others in his circle knew [first hand] the horrors of when the allies in WWI had responded in-kind to German use of chlorine gas, and refrained from their use throughout the war.
It's unknown if the Germans knew that the RAF also had access a small stockpile of Weaponized Anthrax by 1944, though the latter detail makes it fortunate that:
1. The UK wasn't an authoritaritarian state.
2. That the Germans didn't give the UK a counter-strike motivation to use their CB weapon stocks.
My bottom line (as far as meaning is concerned) is that if the allies could have struck first, and hit the axis with the very worst weapons in their arsenals... but they didn't . In many ways this restraint from setting precedent can be demonstrated to have lengthened WWII (such as Chamberlain & his french counterpart refusing to authorize bombing of Germany in 1939; even though Poland was desperate for any kind of military aid from the west), but in others it also saved lives in other areas of the conflict.
3
-
@mikereger1186 I'd have to differ re' the Atomic Bombings, as there's an entirely rational and demonstrable causation for their use and effect.
After all: The Japanese [and the Germans before them] had set the precedent for bombing civilians, though the Japanese were the only ones to use air-dropped Chemical/Biological weapons [and IIRC only upon China] during the period.
By that point in 1945 Japan's government were still refusing to surrender, despite being militarily depleted, under a supplies blockade of all materials needed from outside Japan, and most of Japan's cities having been destroyed by firebombing. Instead they [Japan's government] were preparing the population to resist an allied invasion to the death . The allies had taken heavy casualties on Okinawa [and seen the lengths their opponent would go to], and expected the combined death toll [allied personnel & the servicemen & armed civilians they faced] of taking Japan's home islands as being far higher for all concerned.
As such: the decision to send the Japanese government an unsubtle demonstration of the abject futility of not surrendering, ultimately can be demonstrated to have saved lives, by ensuring an invasion that was expected to be a mutual bloodbath, was supplanted with an uncontested landing of troops, in a country that had unconditionally surrendered.
It could also be argued; that without the double precident for their use; M.A.D. wouldn't have been as effective in deterring war between first world nations, as it has been since 1945.
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1