Dead At Large, Dead In Custody
2005.08.25 22:32

In Auschwitz Extermination Camp, 500 Jehovah's Witnesses and Gay people, 10,000 Russian, 21,000 Romany (Gypsies), 70,000 Polish , 1,000,000 Jewish (in which 200,000 were children)were killed in custody.
2,172,000 Japanese people (1,500,000 combatants, 672,000 non-combatants)were confirmed to be dead in WWII, but after they surrendered, after they were occupied by GHQ(General Headquater in Tokyo lead by general MacArthur), no one was hurt by US troops.
It was inevitable to have casualties and death toll during the war in a warfare in the event of war, but how about the death caught or captured or put in a camp and scentenced to death without any reasons.
Death at large is inevitable but death in custody is absurd and hard to accept.
I read many Japanese soldiers killed themselves before being caught by enemies. I still believe this is the only right way soldiers should follow.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Dead At Large, Dead In Custody Preferences Top 7 comments Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold: -1: 7 comments 0: 7 comments 1: 7 comments 2: 3 comments 3: 0 comments 4: 0 comments 5: 0 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
suicidal soldiers(Score:1)
by DisownedSky (905171) * <disownedskyNO@SPAMearthlink.net> on 2005.08.26 0:44 (#13397859) (http://home.earthlink.net/~disownedsky Last Journal: 2005.09.28 2:26)
While you have to admire their loyalty and courage, this practice cost the Japanese dearly during the war. In particular, pilots going down with their planes. At the end of the war, thye had few well trained and experienced combat pilots.
In battles like Tarawa, the Japanese could have put up an even more effective resistance had they not committed suicide instead of risking capture.--
"If you haven't found something strange during the day, it hasn't been much of a day." - J. A. Wheeler
Generally Speaking(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.27 12:42 (#13413369) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
There are exceptions in any rule. And it's not merely my admiration to their loyalty, morale but a principle of battlefield. There are some cases that strategic retreat or even surrender makes some sense but basically those are actions that benefitted to their enemies.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
That's not right(Score:2)
by Stargoat (658863) on 2005.08.26 2:58 (#13399339) (http://www.stargoat.com/ Last Journal: 2005.09.30 20:04)
3.6 million? Numbers that many would consider high in the west put the number at about 2,172,000, with only 672,000 of them civilians. The 1,500,000 military deaths includes the invasion of China in 1931 to the end of the war in '46.
Re:That's not right(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.26 22:30 (#13406864) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
1,500,000 millitary death is right. Probably 3,600,000 includes not only those who were dead at direct cause but from the aftermath of war in addition to the death toll of soldiers.--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Kind of late chiming in on this(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.08.29 12:21 (#13424260) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
But I remember a sci-fi story on this topic. Basically, what happens to a rational mind when certain human beings are no longer people, is this gets turned into a "humane by numbers" game. Say you're the camp warden. You're in charge of a concentration camp that holds 120,000 people. You currently have a population of 136,000 people, and you're begining to have starvation and disease in the barracks. In addition, the military is sending you an additional 1000 people a day. 450 are starving every day, making your avarage increase in population 650 a day.Can you not see how it might be considered the humane thing to kill off the humanoid animals already in your possession, especially the weakest and thinest first, to make room for the new arrivals?--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both!
Re:Kind of late chiming in on this(Score:1)
by mercedo (822671) * on 2005.08.30 19:20 (#13434275) (http://slashdot.org/~mercedo/journal/109855 Last Journal: 2005.10.01 16:45)
It is generally regarded as 'first in last out' in human resourses, but unfortunately 'first in first out' in comodities. If we stand the point in humanism, apparently the former should be applied to.
I think you are suggesting the current situation of US immigration. That's too bad. How can you prevent it?--Ancient Greek Philosophers -18c Enlightenment Thinkers -Slashdotters [ Parent ]
Re:Kind of late chiming in on this(Score:2)
by Marxist Hacker 42 (638312) * <seebert@seeberfamily.org> on 2005.08.31 4:26 (#13438659) (http://www.informationr.us/ Last Journal: 2005.09.28 6:49)
I think you are suggesting the current situation of US immigration. That's too bad. How can you prevent it? Yes- we are in the same situation in the United States. Depending on how you look at it, we're either 300% above carrying capacity or 50% below. Unlike a concentration camp, you can't simply count the beds to get carrying capacity; other environmental concerns need to be considered.How to prevent it? There are only two ways to prevent it- stop the inflow or increase the outflow. On the Maxamacro scale, human beings are no different from any other liquid. If you don't believe me- go up on a high rise some time and watch traffic flow on a freeway. It's like watching a wave machine in a laboratory.--Two chances to become a Dictator- and Bush blew them both!