History just ate abit of my game Interest.

Oberon · 09-10-11, 07:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Torplexed

Bushido originally prescribed correct and honorable behavior towards one's enemies as a manifestation of one's own honor. Under the Japan military regime that developed in the 1920s and 1930s it was warped and twisted into something that the samurai wouldn't even have recognized. Surrender had not been considered shameful in Japan's previous wars, nor in the civil wars that shaped the Empire's earlier history. Slowly after World War One it was presented as an unthinkable social and military disgrace. Japan's position as the lone major Asian power outnumbered in a world of white colonial nations perceived as trying to keep Japan down as the low man on the totem pole probably contributed to it.

I must confess I had a slight niggling at the back of my mind as I typed that that it was incorrect and thank you for correcting me.

Torplexed · 09-10-11, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Oberon

I must confess I had a slight niggling at the back of my mind as I typed that that it was incorrect and thank you for correcting me.

Not too long ago i finished reading Max Hasting's Retribution about the last two years of the Pacific War. What he describes about the training of Japanese soldiers is pretty grim. These men started out as very simple innocent farmers and fisherman. By the time the Imperial Japanese Army is through with them they had been transformed into the human equivalent of vicious pit bulls. As a recruit you could be beaten for anything. Because you were too short or too tall, or because somebody didn't like the way you drank tea. Engaging in bayonet practice on live Chinese captives, and then beheading the rest. No wonder they were so anxious to die in battle. Life was hell.

Catfish · 09-10-11, 08:50 AM

" ... In any army of mankind, from Sumer to Rome, Hitler's SS and US marines, the very first professional action of any drill sergeant is to break a man and make him lose his dignity, to then build him up from the rubble, as an all-obeying killing machine, without the luxury of thinking himself.

The "better" a soldier is, militarily, the less hindrance is left to act like a human being. Because no one would kill someone else without feeling hate, having an at least temporarily fade-out for humanity, or sheer greed. Sometimes this can be also achieved byshizophrenia, by using drugs, or by this warm fuzzy feeling that the of killing of others is good or necessary for your country (implanted patriotism and chauvinism).
Franky, if all people would just say no to killing and would not have been "prepared" in this special way, wars would become impossible. ..."

Regarding killing to be effective, this is not regarded as true today. A lot of wounded men, certainly having lost the ability to fight, are much more a hindrance for the rest of the fighting soldiers, than a dead man. As well the impact at home (hospital, stories, criticism) has also become a major factor. Not pretty, just modern warfare.

MH · 09-10-11, 08:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Catfish

" ... In any army of mankind, from Sumer to Rome, Hitler's SS and US marines, the very first professional action of any drill sergeant is to break a man and make him lose his dignity, to then build him up from the rubble, as an all-obeying killing machine, without the luxury of thinking himself.

The "better" a soldier is, militarily, the less hindrance is left to act like a human being. Because no one would kill someone else without feeling hate, having an at least temporarily fade-out for humanity, or sheer greed. Sometimes this can be also achieved byshizophrenia, by using drugs, or by this warm fuzzy feeling that the of killing of others is good or necessary for your country (implanted patriotism and chauvinism).
Franky, if all people would just say no to killing and would not have been "prepared" in this special way, wars would become impossible. ..."

Regarding killing to be effective, this is not regarded as true today. A lot of wounded men, certainly having lost the ability to fight, are much more a hindrance for the rest of the fighting soldiers, than a dead man. As well the impact at home (hospital, stories, criticism) has also become a major factor. Not pretty, just modern warfare.

Sorry but it is Bull****.
You can lose your humanity in prolonged warfare but still its very much dependent on values you had been grown on and personal character.
Still some armies/counties follow ethical rules more than others when training soldiers.

Jimbuna · 09-10-11, 12:31 PM

The British army for one....learning to obey orders and discipline but that is about it.

Task Force · 09-10-11, 12:41 PM

Personally ive always believed that in war it is either them or you, and if you can keep them from fighting by destroying them (in this case shoot them down) you should do it, as it causes less suffering and trouble for your men/people in the long run. (also helps secure dominance in the war).

TLAM Strike · 09-10-11, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Task Force

Personally ive always believed that in war it is either them or you, and if you can keep them from fighting by destroying them (in this case shoot them down) you should do it, as it causes less suffering and trouble for your men/people in the long run. (also helps secure dominance in the war).

Indeed, the primary aim of war is to disarm the enemy, that is achieved by destroying their armed forces, occupying their land, and forcing their government to concede to terms. To fail at any one of these three points is the prolong the conflict for both sides.

Sailor Steve · 09-10-11, 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MH

Sorry but it is Bull****

Rules, please. We just had a huge argument about this.

09-10-11, 12:31 PM	#5
Jimbuna Chief of the Boat Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: 250 metres below the surface Posts: 190,645 Downloads: 63 Uploads: 13	The British army for one....learning to obey orders and discipline but that is about it. __________________ Wise men speak because they have something to say; Fools because they have to say something. Oh my God, not again!!

09-10-11, 12:41 PM	#6
Task Force Rear Admiral Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: SPACE!!!! Posts: 10,142 Downloads: 85 Uploads: 0	Personally ive always believed that in war it is either them or you, and if you can keep them from fighting by destroying them (in this case shoot them down) you should do it, as it causes less suffering and trouble for your men/people in the long run. (also helps secure dominance in the war). __________________ Task Force industries "Taking control of the world, one mind at a time"

09-10-11, 08:50 AM	#3
Catfish Dipped Squirrel Operative Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: ..where the ocean meets the sky Posts: 17,772 Downloads: 38 Uploads: 0	" ... In any army of mankind, from Sumer to Rome, Hitler's SS and US marines, the very first professional action of any drill sergeant is to break a man and make him lose his dignity, to then build him up from the rubble, as an all-obeying killing machine, without the luxury of thinking himself. The "better" a soldier is, militarily, the less hindrance is left to act like a human being. Because no one would kill someone else without feeling hate, having an at least temporarily fade-out for humanity, or sheer greed. Sometimes this can be also achieved byshizophrenia, by using drugs, or by this warm fuzzy feeling that the of killing of others is good or necessary for your country (implanted patriotism and chauvinism). Franky, if all people would just say no to killing and would not have been "prepared" in this special way, wars would become impossible. ..." Regarding killing to be effective, this is not regarded as true today. A lot of wounded men, certainly having lost the ability to fight, are much more a hindrance for the rest of the fighting soldiers, than a dead man. As well the impact at home (hospital, stories, criticism) has also become a major factor. Not pretty, just modern warfare.