The Down Range Forum
Member Section => Down Range Cafe => Topic started by: Hazcat on June 26, 2008, 04:48:03 PM
-
MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory.
Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy.
The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two.
His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm.
More at link http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/tv/its_all_one_war_117294.htm
-
I'm shocked, I tell you. SHOCKED?
You mean people still actually WATCH shows on PBS????
Who knew?
Roy Hill
-
I heard about this on the Godfather's (Rush Limbaugh) show today. Harvard and Oxford are proving to be bastions of intellectual entropy (look it up it will be fun). Good 'ole America hating just in time for the Fourth. Without much effort I remembered that, in fact, Hitler attacked the USSR and the whole enemy of my enemy thing kicked in. If I'm not mistaken Patton wanted to take out the Ruskies as well, but an errant Jeep did him in. Just a couple of quick thoughts in the face of abject idiocy.
-
I heard about this on the Godfather's (Rush Limbaugh) show today. Harvard and Oxford are proving to be bastions of intellectual entropy (look it up it will be fun). Good 'ole America hating just in time for the Fourth. Without much effort I remembered that, in fact, Hitler attacked the USSR and the whole enemy of my enemy thing kicked in. If I'm not mistaken Patton wanted to take out the Ruskies as well, but an errant Jeep did him in. Just a couple of quick thoughts in the face of abject idiocy.
Not only that, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, wanted to deal with the "annoying" muslim fringe element in Indonesia that was becoming an irritant to the spread to Democracy in the Pacific.
Oh if we would have turned Patton and MacArthur loose back then, what a difference it could have made. BUT we got the UN now, they will take care of the world's problems. :-\ :-\
-
Not only that, Gen. Douglas MacArthur, wanted to deal with the "annoying" muslim fringe element in Indonesia that was becoming an irritant to the spread to Democracy in the Pacific.
Oh if we would have turned Patton and MacArthur loose back then, what a difference it could have made. BUT we got the UN now, they will take care of the world's problems. :-\ :-\
i.e. new world order
-
MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory.
Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy.
The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two.
His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm.
More at link http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/tv/its_all_one_war_117294.htm
As a student of history, leaving out ideologies, or nationalist bias, many of these statements are more or less true. I'll go through Haz's post and the post by Brosometal and give my interpretation based on 40 years of study.
First I have no idea how anyone could consider the victory tainted, or doubt that it was anything but a military victory. Economically however the question of who won is raised by simply looking at the 2 major enemy powers. Germany and Japan today wield ECONOMIC power beyond the wildest dreams of the leaders who took them into war.
The allegation that the war could not have been won without alliance with Stalin is perfectly valid. Had the Soviets not drawn off the larger portion of the German and other axis troops Normandy, if it happened at all, would have been the bloodiest disaster in the history of the western world. If American Sherman tanks fought a battle like Kharkov or Kursk, against massed Tigers and Panthers they would have been destroyed in record time. As an example, Michel Wittmann stopped a US Battalion, destroying its armor, in an incident immortalized in a painting called "Wittmanns corner" The force at his command ? One tank. (I'm writing this off the top of my head, so spelling is iffy, and EXACT details could be off but I will stand by the basic outlines. I think the tank was a Panther, but it may have been a Tiger) The standard ratio preached to American tankers was 5 or 6 to one, While the Tiger or panther was killing the first 3 or 4 Sherman's it would give the remainder a chance to get behind it and fire into the only spot their inadequate 75 mm guns could penetrate. Many American tankers survived only because their armor was not thick enough to detonate the German anti tank shells that passed completely through their Sherman's from side to side.
Was Stalin as bad as Hitler ? No, He was worse, Stalin's orders killed about twice as many Soviets as Hitlers, as one minor example, Soviet Partisans ( stay behind guerrilla fighters ) and returned POW's, in fact ANY ONE who had been behind German lines, according to Solzhenitsyn, were ALL sent to labor camps for at least 5 years, many for as much as 25 years, they had seen how the west lived, in bombed out, over run Germany, and therefore could no longer be trusted to remain loyal to the "Workers Paradise". The reason so many Soviets died in German captivity was NOT because of GERMAN brutality, They did not treat Russian prisoners MUCH worse than others, They starved to death because Stalin would not allow Red Cross food parcels (which made a BIG difference to American and British captives, many times these prisoners had luxuries like cigarettes that were not available to their guards) to be delivered to Soviet prisoners as he would have been required to allow the same privilege to Germans in Soviet custody.
If by Pitiless, and remorseless tactics, they mean "Blitzkrieg" That also is true, up to a point, Close air support as apply by the Ju-87 Stuka was originated by the US Marine Corps during the "Banana wars" and adapted by the Germans. The combined arms, armored thrust tactics that allowed Germany to conquer Poland in 30 days owe much to the thinking of Heinz Guderian, but they also owe much to Americas George Patton and England's JFC Fuller. Military theorists of MANY countries were exchanging thoughts and ideas during the inter war period, Partly because they were like minded scholars , and partly because during the depression the only ones who would listen to them were others of like mind.England, France, and America had won the LAST war, so they stuck with what had worked 20 years earlier since they already had that matériel in stock. Germany had lost the war and been deprived of ALL military equipment beyond small arms. Ever notice that the German Rifle of WWI the K 98 Mauser evolved only slightly between 1914 and the Current Yugo surplus rifles, because it was seen to have worked effectively. Every other aspect of war fighting was examined closely and by 1939 had adapted the latest technological advances.Actually WWII was some what LESS brutal due to the absence of poison gas.
The single interrupted war theory is also valid, At the end of WWI the Imperial German Army had not been "Decisively" beaten, They had been pushed back true, but they were already developing tactics such as the "Sturm Truppen" and equipment like the portable machine gun, and were receiving a huge influx of EXPERIENCED reinforcements freed up by the collapse of Russia Germany was surrendered by politicians who could no longer feed their people. This gave birth to the "stab in the back" legend that Hitler later used to mobilize the German people. Adolph claimed that the German Army was still capable of beating the Allies (possible but debatable) But was let down by civilians who failed to support them and instead sold out to the communists, Actually the Blockade worked and starved Germany out of the war, this is what led to Hitlers fixation on Lebensraum (Living space ) actually a requirement for enough land to feed Germany without relying on imports, like OUR current fuel situation. The punitive nature of the treaty Of Versailles, insisted on by financially ruined Britain and France guaranteed another war.
Despite what many think, there were less than 10 years peace between the installments of THE WAR. American, and British troops were taken from Europe in 1918 and instead of being returned home were sent to Siberia and North Russia, initially to guard supplies sent to the anti communist "White" Russians, they soon found themselves back in combat that lasted until the early 20's (I think it was either 21 or possibly 24, this was also the beginning of the "Cold War" and the only time that US and Soviet forces actually shot at each other under their own flags) The first shots by a belligerent of round 2 occurred in the so called "Marco Polo Bridge incident" between Japanese and Chinese troops igniting a fight that would last until august 1945, the incident happened in 1929.
So it can be argued that a continuous state of war with shifting loyalties existed from August 1914 until the Fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
As to Brosometals comment about Enemy of my enemy, Germany and the soviet Union were not enemies prior to 5am June 22 1941, the slow reaction of the Soviet forces was due to Stalins inability to accept that his Friend Adolph Hitler would do such a thing. In fact, invading German troops moving into Russia passed trains loaded with Ukrainian grain be shipped into Germany. Remember the Soviet German non aggression pact that carved up Poland between the TWO invading armies. In 1924 the Wiemar republic (post WWI Germany) was banned from having many types of military hardware German Chief of Staff Von Seekt arranged a deal with the Soviets German factories and training areas would be allowed to operate in Russia in exchange for sharing the technology developed, this was later expanded into trade agreements as Hitler built stockpiles for the coming war. Many of the German pilots and mechanized troops who served in Spain and Poland received their training in the Soviet Union, while the Soviet T-34 tank was developed and built in German owned and operated factories.
Since I've been up all night, I Left for work at 2 pm Thursday and have not been to bed yet, so I'm crashing ;D
-
MEMBERS of the Greatest Generation - especially those with weak hearts - might want to steer clear of an upcoming PBS documentary that suggests the Allied victory in World War II was "tainted" and questions whether it can even be called a victory.
Moreover, the documentary, titled "The War of the World: A New History of the 20th Century," asserts that the war could only be won by forming an unholy alliance with a dictator - Joseph Stalin, who was as brutal as the one they were fighting, Adolf Hitler - and by adopting the same "pitiless" and "remorseless" tactics practiced by the enemy.
The three-part documentary is a companion to the best-selling book, "The War of the World: Twentieth Century Conflict and the Descent of the West" by Harvard and Oxford historian Niall Ferguson. The one-hour Part One of the documentary premieres Monday night at 10 on Ch. 13. The other two parts air the following two Mondays. World War II is the focus of Part Two.
His thesis: Instead of looking at the 20th century as having been disrupted by two world wars with periods of relative peace before, between and after them, it is more appropriate to view much of the history of the century as a continuous bloody conflict that was interrupted occasionally for a few short, exhausted catnaps of relative calm.
More at link http://www.nypost.com/seven/06262008/tv/its_all_one_war_117294.htm
Hazcat,
Interesting piece you wrote, but you forget 2 facts of war:
1) In war the first casualty is the truth
2) History is written by the victors.
Concerning 1): The french and British might have defeated the Germans in autumn 1939 with relative ease. All German armoured columns were fighting in Poland and the entire Ruhr area (then Germany's industrial heartland) could have been overrun if the French and British would have teamed up and broken through the Siegfried Line. (at that time the entire Ruhr area was defended by a small number of Landstorm units, poorly trained and equipped). Also they might have stopped the German Blitzkrieg in may/june 1940 by deploying better tactics and co-operation. Just imagine, ending the war on the European theatre, all without the help of the US...
Concerning 2): Over japan the US Air Force used unprecedented quantities of incindiary bombs to lay waste to the Japanese cities, indiscimminately destroying millitary installations, factories but also temples, hospitals and entire highly poputated civillian housing (with the civilians still in it). And, not forgetting the 2 nuclear devices om Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know, I know, without those 2 a-bombs an invasion would have been necessary, ending in even more civilian casualties, but still, firebombing civilian areas and eradicating entite cities is nothing less that a direct crime of war...
Ocin
-
Hazcat,
Interesting piece you wrote, but you forget 2 facts of war:
1) In war the first casualty is the truth
2) History is written by the victors.
Concerning 1): The french and British might have defeated the Germans in autumn 1939 with relative ease. All German armoured columns were fighting in Poland and the entire Ruhr area (then Germany's industrial heartland) could have been overrun if the French and British would have teamed up and broken through the Siegfried Line. (at that time the entire Ruhr area was defended by a small number of Landstorm units, poorly trained and equipped). Also they might have stopped the German Blitzkrieg in may/june 1940 by deploying better tactics and co-operation. Just imagine, ending the war on the European theatre, all without the help of the US...
Concerning 2): Over japan the US Air Force used unprecedented quantities of incindiary bombs to lay waste to the Japanese cities, indiscimminately destroying millitary installations, factories but also temples, hospitals and entire highly poputated civillian housing (with the civilians still in it). And, not forgetting the 2 nuclear devices om Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know, I know, without those 2 a-bombs an invasion would have been necessary, ending in even more civilian casualties, but still, firebombing civilian areas and eradicating entite cities is nothing less that a direct crime of war...
Ocin
The atomic bombs did less damage than the fire bombing. Effectiveness of raids was measured by how many square miles had been destroyed. What made the Abombs so horrible was that this destruction had been wrought by a SINGLE bomb.
-
Hazcat,
Interesting piece you wrote, but you forget 2 facts of war:
1) In war the first casualty is the truth
2) History is written by the victors.
Concerning 1): The french and British might have defeated the Germans in autumn 1939 with relative ease. All German armoured columns were fighting in Poland and the entire Ruhr area (then Germany's industrial heartland) could have been overrun if the French and British would have teamed up and broken through the Siegfried Line. (at that time the entire Ruhr area was defended by a small number of Landstorm units, poorly trained and equipped). Also they might have stopped the German Blitzkrieg in may/june 1940 by deploying better tactics and co-operation. Just imagine, ending the war on the European theatre, all without the help of the US...
Concerning 2): Over japan the US Air Force used unprecedented quantities of incindiary bombs to lay waste to the Japanese cities, indiscimminately destroying millitary installations, factories but also temples, hospitals and entire highly poputated civillian housing (with the civilians still in it). And, not forgetting the 2 nuclear devices om Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know, I know, without those 2 a-bombs an invasion would have been necessary, ending in even more civilian casualties, but still, firebombing civilian areas and eradicating entite cities is nothing less that a direct crime of war...
Ocin
I doubt seriously that the French could have stopped the Germans in 1939. They were too embedded in their Maginot (i.e., purely defensive) mindset. If you are speaking purely militarily, in concert with the British, maybe. Big maybe. Military History Quarterly had a thought-provoking article that Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler because he knew that the Brits were not able to take him on. So maybe the Brits and French together could have. Maybe.
The 2 bombs dropped on Japan were atomic, not nuclear. Nuclear is a term applied to the second generation and later so to speak. Nit picky, I know, but accuracy helps.
As for the incendiaries, the USAAC can be forgiven their use in their effort to destroy the Japanese ability and will to fight. Before you start slinging US "war crimes" around, you would do well to recount the Japanese atrocities, many of which were known to our fighters at the time, including Bataan, the Phillipine POW camps, the tenacity of the fights on all of the islands through Okinawa. Add to that the bayoneting of wounded in Alaska by the Japanese, the rape of Nanking, and on and on and on.
War is hell. And yes, sometimes you fight like the enemy, or even worse, to destroy them. Those aren't war crimes, that is getting the job done.
As long as you can go back to the state you were in before you had to get down and dirty, no problem. Our problem was that our enemies started out down and dirty - what did they have to go back to?
Magpul quotes a soldier in the sandbox as saying "this focus on tact, politeness and diplomacy has made liars of us all." And, I would warrant, has gotten a lot of our brothers killed or wounded as well.
-
Hazcat,
Interesting piece you wrote, but you forget 2 facts of war:
1) In war the first casualty is the truth
2) History is written by the victors.
Concerning 1): The french and British might have defeated the Germans in autumn 1939 with relative ease. All German armoured columns were fighting in Poland and the entire Ruhr area (then Germany's industrial heartland) could have been overrun if the French and British would have teamed up and broken through the Siegfried Line. (at that time the entire Ruhr area was defended by a small number of Landstorm units, poorly trained and equipped). Also they might have stopped the German Blitzkrieg in may/june 1940 by deploying better tactics and co-operation. Just imagine, ending the war on the European theatre, all without the help of the US...
Concerning 2): Over japan the US Air Force used unprecedented quantities of incindiary bombs to lay waste to the Japanese cities, indiscimminately destroying millitary installations, factories but also temples, hospitals and entire highly poputated civillian housing (with the civilians still in it). And, not forgetting the 2 nuclear devices om Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know, I know, without those 2 a-bombs an invasion would have been necessary, ending in even more civilian casualties, but still, firebombing civilian areas and eradicating entite cities is nothing less that a direct crime of war...
Ocin
Ocin,
I did not write it.
-
I doubt seriously that the French could have stopped the Germans in 1939. They were too embedded in their Maginot (i.e., purely defensive) mindset. If you are speaking purely militarily, in concert with the British, maybe. Big maybe. Military History Quarterly had a thought-provoking article that Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler because he knew that the Brits were not able to take him on. So maybe the Brits and French together could have. Maybe.
The 2 bombs dropped on Japan were atomic, not nuclear. Nuclear is a term applied to the second generation and later so to speak. Nit picky, I know, but accuracy helps.
As for the incendiaries, the USAAC can be forgiven their use in their effort to destroy the Japanese ability and will to fight. Before you start slinging US "war crimes" around, you would do well to recount the Japanese atrocities, many of which were known to our fighters at the time, including Bataan, the Phillipine POW camps, the tenacity of the fights on all of the islands through Okinawa. Add to that the bayoneting of wounded in Alaska by the Japanese, the rape of Nanking, and on and on and on.
War is hell. And yes, sometimes you fight like the enemy, or even worse, to destroy them. Those aren't war crimes, that is getting the job done.
As long as you can go back to the state you were in before you had to get down and dirty, no problem. Our problem was that our enemies started out down and dirty - what did they have to go back to?
Magpul quotes a soldier in the sandbox as saying "this focus on tact, politeness and diplomacy has made liars of us all." And, I would warrant, has gotten a lot of our brothers killed or wounded as well.
I should not answer for Ocin, His country was occupied, and he probably has a differant perspective. For myself I will say that I had no thought of "War Crimes". I was simply stating stategic fact. Japans industry was widely dispursedwith small shops all over a city building differant components of variuos military items, those cities were built primarily of wood and rice paper, the B 29, for several reasons was not able to acheive effective results in the ultra high altitude role for which it was designed. Gen. Curtis Lemay put these facts together and developed an alternitive stratagy that proved more effective. If civilians got cought in the way, oh well, Sun Tsu said that the objective was not to win battles, but to destroy the enemies willingness and ability to fight. Seems to have worked.
As to defeating Hitler in 39 the ability was there but not the will, Ocin is right, the western front was held by warm bodies, and British and French tanks were actually better than the tanks Hitler did not have in the west, Decisive action by the western powers was the secret fear of both the General Staff and Hitler, as related by Von Mellinthin (Rommels XO ) However, the time to stop Hitler would have been when German troops marched back into the Rhineland. In Hitlers own writings he admitted that agressive action then would have resulted in one short sharp engagement and the defeat of Germany, because it was mostly a propaganda show with nothing to back it up, When he got away with that he knew he could do pretty much as he pleased.
-
As a student of history, leaving out ideologies, or nationalist bias, many of these statements are more or less true. I'll go through Haz's post and the post by Brosometal and give my interpretation based on 40 years of study.
First I have no idea how anyone could consider the victory tainted, or doubt that it was anything but a military victory. Economically however the question of who won is raised by simply looking at the 2 major enemy powers. Germany and Japan today wield ECONOMIC power beyond the wildest dreams of the leaders who took them into war.
The allegation that the war could not have been won without alliance with Stalin is perfectly valid. Had the Soviets not drawn off the larger portion of the German and other axis troops Normandy, if it happened at all, would have been the bloodiest disaster in the history of the western world. If American Sherman tanks fought a battle like Kharkov or Kursk, against massed Tigers and Panthers they would have been destroyed in record time. As an example, Michel Wittmann stopped a US Battalion, destroying its armor, in an incident immortalized in a painting called "Wittmanns corner" The force at his command ? One tank. (I'm writing this off the top of my head, so spelling is iffy, and EXACT details could be off but I will stand by the basic outlines. I think the tank was a Panther, but it may have been a Tiger) The standard ratio preached to American tankers was 5 or 6 to one, While the Tiger or panther was killing the first 3 or 4 Sherman's it would give the remainder a chance to get behind it and fire into the only spot their inadequate 75 mm guns could penetrate. Many American tankers survived only because their armor was not thick enough to detonate the German anti tank shells that passed completely through their Sherman's from side to side.
Was Stalin as bad as Hitler ? No, He was worse, Stalin's orders killed about twice as many Soviets as Hitlers, as one minor example, Soviet Partisans ( stay behind guerrilla fighters ) and returned POW's, in fact ANY ONE who had been behind German lines, according to Solzhenitsyn, were ALL sent to labor camps for at least 5 years, many for as much as 25 years, they had seen how the west lived, in bombed out, over run Germany, and therefore could no longer be trusted to remain loyal to the "Workers Paradise". The reason so many Soviets died in German captivity was NOT because of GERMAN brutality, They did not treat Russian prisoners MUCH worse than others, They starved to death because Stalin would not allow Red Cross food parcels (which made a BIG difference to American and British captives, many times these prisoners had luxuries like cigarettes that were not available to their guards) to be delivered to Soviet prisoners as he would have been required to allow the same privilege to Germans in Soviet custody.
If by Pitiless, and remorseless tactics, they mean "Blitzkrieg" That also is true, up to a point, Close air support as apply by the Ju-87 Stuka was originated by the US Marine Corps during the "Banana wars" and adapted by the Germans. The combined arms, armored thrust tactics that allowed Germany to conquer Poland in 30 days owe much to the thinking of Heinz Guderian, but they also owe much to Americas George Patton and England's JFC Fuller. Military theorists of MANY countries were exchanging thoughts and ideas during the inter war period, Partly because they were like minded scholars , and partly because during the depression the only ones who would listen to them were others of like mind.England, France, and America had won the LAST war, so they stuck with what had worked 20 years earlier since they already had that matériel in stock. Germany had lost the war and been deprived of ALL military equipment beyond small arms. Ever notice that the German Rifle of WWI the K 98 Mauser evolved only slightly between 1914 and the Current Yugo surplus rifles, because it was seen to have worked effectively. Every other aspect of war fighting was examined closely and by 1939 had adapted the latest technological advances.Actually WWII was some what LESS brutal due to the absence of poison gas.
The single interrupted war theory is also valid, At the end of WWI the Imperial German Army had not been "Decisively" beaten, They had been pushed back true, but they were already developing tactics such as the "Sturm Truppen" and equipment like the portable machine gun, and were receiving a huge influx of EXPERIENCED reinforcements freed up by the collapse of Russia Germany was surrendered by politicians who could no longer feed their people. This gave birth to the "stab in the back" legend that Hitler later used to mobilize the German people. Adolph claimed that the German Army was still capable of beating the Allies (possible but debatable) But was let down by civilians who failed to support them and instead sold out to the communists, Actually the Blockade worked and starved Germany out of the war, this is what led to Hitlers fixation on Lebensraum (Living space ) actually a requirement for enough land to feed Germany without relying on imports, like OUR current fuel situation. The punitive nature of the treaty Of Versailles, insisted on by financially ruined Britain and France guaranteed another war.
Despite what many think, there were less than 10 years peace between the installments of THE WAR. American, and British troops were taken from Europe in 1918 and instead of being returned home were sent to Siberia and North Russia, initially to guard supplies sent to the anti communist "White" Russians, they soon found themselves back in combat that lasted until the early 20's (I think it was either 21 or possibly 24, this was also the beginning of the "Cold War" and the only time that US and Soviet forces actually shot at each other under their own flags) The first shots by a belligerent of round 2 occurred in the so called "Marco Polo Bridge incident" between Japanese and Chinese troops igniting a fight that would last until august 1945, the incident happened in 1929.
So it can be argued that a continuous state of war with shifting loyalties existed from August 1914 until the Fall of the Berlin wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991.
As to Brosometals comment about Enemy of my enemy, Germany and the soviet Union were not enemies prior to 5am June 22 1941, the slow reaction of the Soviet forces was due to Stalins inability to accept that his Friend Adolph Hitler would do such a thing. In fact, invading German troops moving into Russia passed trains loaded with Ukrainian grain be shipped into Germany. Remember the Soviet German non aggression pact that carved up Poland between the TWO invading armies. In 1924 the Wiemar republic (post WWI Germany) was banned from having many types of military hardware German Chief of Staff Von Seekt arranged a deal with the Soviets German factories and training areas would be allowed to operate in Russia in exchange for sharing the technology developed, this was later expanded into trade agreements as Hitler built stockpiles for the coming war. Many of the German pilots and mechanized troops who served in Spain and Poland received their training in the Soviet Union, while the Soviet T-34 tank was developed and built in German owned and operated factories.
Since I've been up all night, I Left for work at 2 pm Thursday and have not been to bed yet, so I'm crashing ;D
A+++
-
Ocin,
I did not write it.
OOPS!! Sorry :-[
-
OOPS!! Sorry :-[
No problem. Just didn't want you thinking I knew how to write. ;)
-
I doubt seriously that the French could have stopped the Germans in 1939. They were too embedded in their Maginot (i.e., purely defensive) mindset. If you are speaking purely militarily, in concert with the British, maybe. Big maybe. Military History Quarterly had a thought-provoking article that Chamberlain "appeased" Hitler because he knew that the Brits were not able to take him on. So maybe the Brits and French together could have. Maybe.
The 2 bombs dropped on Japan were atomic, not nuclear. Nuclear is a term applied to the second generation and later so to speak. Nit picky, I know, but accuracy helps.
As for the incendiaries, the USAAC can be forgiven their use in their effort to destroy the Japanese ability and will to fight. Before you start slinging US "war crimes" around, you would do well to recount the Japanese atrocities, many of which were known to our fighters at the time, including Bataan, the Phillipine POW camps, the tenacity of the fights on all of the islands through Okinawa. Add to that the bayoneting of wounded in Alaska by the Japanese, the rape of Nanking, and on and on and on.
War is hell. And yes, sometimes you fight like the enemy, or even worse, to destroy them. Those aren't war crimes, that is getting the job done.
As long as you can go back to the state you were in before you had to get down and dirty, no problem. Our problem was that our enemies started out down and dirty - what did they have to go back to?
Magpul quotes a soldier in the sandbox as saying "this focus on tact, politeness and diplomacy has made liars of us all." And, I would warrant, has gotten a lot of our brothers killed or wounded as well.
Hi Pathfinder,
If your point is that my opinion is purely in retrospect, then you are correct. I was merely talking in terms of personnell and equipment and did nit factor in the mindset of the French and British.
As for you mentioning of the warcrimes the Japanese committed, I did not leave that out to rain on anyone's parade. The point I was trying to make was more on an abstract level, as to what constitutes a warcrime and as to what not. about the dropping these 2 (indeed) A-bombs: strictly, that is a warcrime and also immoral, since you cannot do anything else but target a civillian population with such an indiscrimminate weapon.
BUT:
The alternative would have been a full scale invasion of Japan and that would have brought with it a much higher civilian casualty rate and destruction of property. To my understanding, the US military staff did have plans for an invasion and with that they had estimated that civillian casualties might exceed the number of 1 million (!).
Taking that in consideration, is dropping 2 A-bombs a war crime? You cannot target the civillian population nor can you use the destruction of houses, hospitals, churches, temples and so forth as a weapon to force that civillian population into surrender. Doing so IS a war crime.
But you also have to go at lengths to minimise the effects on the civillian population. Failing to do so constitutes a war crime as well. See the dillemma there? Damned if you do and damned if you don't, right?
Well, this subject has all the ingredients for a nicely heated debate at a party, so I suggest that I bring the chips ;D ;D ;D
Ocin
-
Ocin,
I found your posts of interest.
I would just observe that one persons war crime could be to another person just saving his own ass.
I think your definition of war crimes in these posts do not pass the muster. Sorry. War is hell. I can testify from experience on the front lines. Where were you?
-
Hi Pathfinder,
If your point is that my opinion is purely in retrospect, then you are correct. I was merely talking in terms of personnell and equipment and did nit factor in the mindset of the French and British.
As for you mentioning of the warcrimes the Japanese committed, I did not leave that out to rain on anyone's parade. The point I was trying to make was more on an abstract level, as to what constitutes a warcrime and as to what not. about the dropping these 2 (indeed) A-bombs: strictly, that is a warcrime and also immoral, since you cannot do anything else but target a civillian population with such an indiscrimminate weapon.
BUT:
The alternative would have been a full scale invasion of Japan and that would have brought with it a much higher civilian casualty rate and destruction of property. To my understanding, the US military staff did have plans for an invasion and with that they had estimated that civillian casualties might exceed the number of 1 million (!).
Taking that in consideration, is dropping 2 A-bombs a war crime? You cannot target the civillian population nor can you use the destruction of houses, hospitals, churches, temples and so forth as a weapon to force that civillian population into surrender. Doing so IS a war crime.
But you also have to go at lengths to minimise the effects on the civillian population. Failing to do so constitutes a war crime as well. See the dillemma there? Damned if you do and damned if you don't, right?
Well, this subject has all the ingredients for a nicely heated debate at a party, so I suggest that I bring the chips ;D ;D ;D
Ocin
Ocin,
I found your posts of interest.
I would just observe that one persons war crime could be to another person just saving his own ass.
I think your definition of war crimes in these posts do not pass the muster. Sorry. War is hell. I can testify from experience on the front lines. Where were you?
I to am finding this a very fun debate, I highlighted your posts to illustrate one point though, We are looking at these events from a mid 20th /early 21st century perspective. People who had struggled merely to survive the great depression did not see things in the same light as we do today. No one saw the Irony of condemning Hitlers treatment of Jews whille in America those same Jews were not permitted to join the local country club, and Blacks could be lynched. The English did not see any irony in condemning Japanese agression in China while Maintaining their Empire in Africa and Asia. What would be the reaction to a nation that colonized another today ? But the period we are discussing was a time when people still beleived in "The White Mans Burden", The well intentioned belief that it was the DUTY of the European nations to lead the African and Asian to a level of civilization that they were not capable of acheiving on their own. Greed was NOT the only motive, and judging by the disasterous results of independence in so many of the African Countries that thinking would appear to have some validity.
As for carpet bombing cities, do not be to hasty to condemn those actions, Arial bombing was still fairly newThe technology of the 40's did not allow for the type of presicion we can achieve now. Back then it was difficult for a low level bomber to hit a bridge, or a particular building, today we have the capability to hit a particular door or window in the building , from 600 miles away. So we should not be to eager to start labeling things as war crimes with out bearing in mind what technology allowed, considering that, the western powers conducted the cleanest war they could, but they put target destruction above considerations of "Collateral Damage". Also our thinking is influenced by the AFTERMATH of that destruction, that influence had not yet touched those who shaped the course of the war.
-
I would like to thank everyone for their versions of history ;D Relax, the original thrust of this thread was how the documentary would be from a "hate America" point of view. As with any thesis there are threads of truth, but the stink of moral relativism is all over this (BTW I will watch just the same to see the actual execution. Although slim, there may be a chance that I have this all wrong). ::)
Tom, I am a bit of a history nerd myself. For a reference point, between the ages of 10 and 14 I had read all the books the Aventura Public Library (Large North Miami Beach Branch) had on WWII with a major focus on the aviation aspect. The history is not lost on me. I believe this series is an attempt to be the "smartest person in the room": A new angle on an aging era with a twist of controversy and , wha-lah, I am a hero of present day academia. See how smart I am. With regards to being one big war, yes, there is your thread of truth. I have also heard that WWII started in '31 when Japan invaded Manchuria. This is just another opinion with the "smartest person in the room" attempt. I think most here will take offense to the moral relativist idea that the Nazis and the Allies were just as bad. Yes. In war things happen on both sides that are not humane (Curtis LeMay once remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes). The sanitized package of present day no-collateral-damage war is a Hollywood fantasy. Bad things happen. We firebombed both Japan and Germany with horrendous results (see above). That is war: Ugly. Most in today's society do not understand this. War is a movie that has a happy ending. Reality does not concur. Yes. History is written by the winners. There are more than a few Jews that are glad that the United States wrote the history for WWII. That fact alone is enough to make the premise of the thesis a silly one. Another way to look at it. Regardless of present day revisionist history, the US was drawn in (back in if it makes you happier) to the global conflict with Pearl Harbor. To quote Billy Joel, "We didn't start the fire..." We responded to aggressive acts against us. To use present day leftist logic, the war in Europe was an illegal war because Germany did not attack us. Too bad their Axis buddies went and kicked the wrong hornet's nest. Besides, good 'ole Adolf double crossed the Reds before we jumped in, thus the "the enemy of my enemy" comment, but I digress. If you want to push it a bit, has the conflict ended yet? We have shuffled the deck a bit, but has it ended? You can make an argument for "No". Putin is old KGB. They are reluctant "allies" if it suits their purpose. We are now training Iraqis that we were bombing at the end of last century. Where do you draw the line? It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I just object with the manner with which it is being done.
-
I think what is lost in these Hitler comparisons is that Hitler was comitting mass genocide and ethnic cleansing within his own country. The US was not. There is a huge moral distinction between genocide and collateral damage and between initiating war- like aggressive actions and defending yourself that seems to float above the grasp of some so called intellects.
-
Ocin,
I just saw that you are in the Netherlands. Wow! We're international. Sorry for not catching on earlier. BTW I'm 1/4 Dutch. My great grandmother and grandmother immigrated here in the '20's (Dursma? was their name if you know any we may be related). You will definitely have an alternative perspective from most here. I would just like to point out the irony of the term "war crimes". If not engaged in "war" killing would be a crime regardless if it was a civilian or not. Just a thought. Hey, question. Do you have Cool Ranch Doritos or are they Cool American (in Denmark they're Cool American Doritos)?
-
I would like to thank everyone for their versions of history ;D Relax, the original thrust of this thread was how the documentary would be from a "hate America" point of view. As with any thesis there are threads of truth, but the stink of moral relativism is all over this (BTW I will watch just the same to see the actual execution. Although slim, there may be a chance that I have this all wrong). ::)
Tom, I am a bit of a history nerd myself. For a reference point, between the ages of 10 and 14 I had read all the books the Aventura Public Library (Large North Miami Beach Branch) had on WWII with a major focus on the aviation aspect. The history is not lost on me. I believe this series is an attempt to be the "smartest person in the room": A new angle on an aging era with a twist of controversy and , wha-lah, I am a hero of present day academia. See how smart I am. With regards to being one big war, yes, there is your thread of truth. I have also heard that WWII started in '31 when Japan invaded Manchuria. This is just another opinion with the "smartest person in the room" attempt. I think most here will take offense to the moral relativist idea that the Nazis and the Allies were just as bad. Yes. In war things happen on both sides that are not humane (Curtis LeMay once remarked that had the U.S. lost the war, he fully expected to be tried for war crimes). The sanitized package of present day no-collateral-damage war is a Hollywood fantasy. Bad things happen. We firebombed both Japan and Germany with horrendous results (see above). That is war: Ugly. Most in today's society do not understand this. War is a movie that has a happy ending. Reality does not concur. Yes. History is written by the winners. There are more than a few Jews that are glad that the United States wrote the history for WWII. That fact alone is enough to make the premise of the thesis a silly one. Another way to look at it. Regardless of present day revisionist history, the US was drawn in (back in if it makes you happier) to the global conflict with Pearl Harbor. To quote Billy Joel, "We didn't start the fire..." We responded to aggressive acts against us. To use present day leftist logic, the war in Europe was an illegal war because Germany did not attack us. Too bad their Axis buddies went and kicked the wrong hornet's nest. Besides, good 'ole Adolf double crossed the Reds before we jumped in, thus the "the enemy of my enemy" comment, but I digress. If you want to push it a bit, has the conflict ended yet? We have shuffled the deck a bit, but has it ended? You can make an argument for "No". Putin is old KGB. They are reluctant "allies" if it suits their purpose. We are now training Iraqis that we were bombing at the end of last century. Where do you draw the line? It really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things. I just object with the manner with which it is being done.
You misunderstand about the smartest guy in the room thing. I to read everything I could get my hands on about WWII with emphisis on the air war and Marines, Far from trying to be the smartest guy in the room I'm thrilled to finally have people like you guys with whom I can discuss more than the few basic subjects covered on the History Channel, If I talked like this to anyone else I would get a blank stare, You are the first person I have heard state My belief that the "Cold War never ended, it just evolved, and Even with the Soviet Union gone Russia is NOT our freind regardless of what our Government may think. I HOPE you have views that differ from mine, as it makes me think.
Yes this is all in the past, but there are valuable lessons to be drawn from the past that will be lost if people like you and I do not keep them alive. For example, The Chamberlain lesson, You can not negotiate with someone who sees diplomacy as another form of warfare as he will ALWAYS negotiate in bad faith.
If my opening post sounded arrogent I apologize, but I wanted to establish that I had more information than just acouple of history channel shows and watching Combat, (Do you remember that, and Rat Patrol ?) I also wanted to establish that my comments were based on a judgement about numbers and capabilities, not knee jerk reaction. If I offended you I'm sorry, I hope I have cleared up any miss conception. If you or anyone else has an opinion or detail that I've missed or a point of view that differs from mine PLEASE bring it on, I would love to discuss, not argue, not debate, but discuss this or any other period in history, If we don't discuss them the lessons of history are lost, and must be relearned at similar or greater cost.
To bring in the point that alfack is making in the post after yours Hitler and Saddam Hussien (That name agian ;D) were both Bas.. Bad guys, what Hitler did to the Jews, Saddam did in a cruder fashion to the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds, were we right to remove Hitler yes, were we right to remove Saddam, I believe we were, That does not change the fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews and about 2 million "Others" Gays, Gypsies, political opponents etc. while Stalin killed about 20 million of his own people just out of paranioa. dos that mean we should not have used Stalin in our efforts against Hitler, No, Stalin was not at war with Japan, he was fighting on one front while we were trying to protect the entire world,as we still are it is not possible to be strong every where all the time, so we have to pick the battles we think we can win to nibble away at the enemies strengths. During WWII that meat carpet bombing industrial centers and transportation networks and leaving the enemies tanks and troops starved for supplies, witness Rommels campaign in North Africa, whenever he had adaquet supplies of fuel he kicked butt, however his supply lines were vulnerable, When they were cut by Air and sea power he was done, in the retreat from Alamien many of his surviving tanks had to be towed or abandoned due to lack of fuel, when that happened he was all done.
Today in the war on terror we are smashing the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al queda in Iraq, the insurgents are not relevent, just an annoyance in our pursuit of the foriegn terrorists drawn there by our presence, they are our REAL initial target. Iraq is made up of three more or less equally matched ethnic groups who are vieing for control of the oil revenuesThey will fight it out among themselves and there is nothing we can do to stop them, THEY have to settle their differances just like we had our own Civil war. The PEOPLE were not the bad guys, they were the victims, the majority of Iraqi's are standing beside us against the true agressors, the fanats from Syria pakistan and Suadi Arabia who use suicide bombers and cut peoples heads off. The Iraqi PEOPLE are no differant than the Germans who served against us in 41-45 and beside us from 46 on. Their focus never changed, they were defending their country. There is a second level to Americas Iraq stratagy that becomes apparent when you look at a map, our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan puts us with in easy striking distance of both Iran and Syria 2 more country's in the web of extremism, oppresion and WMD, these are countries we could not easily reach otherwise, both have Nuke programs if not functional weapons, these are countries we have been at war with to one degree or another since the late 70's but we could not get to them, now we are much better positioned to deal with any threat they might pose.
I still haven't been to bed so I'm going to cut this off here because I want to address two comments that alfack uses in his post,
First there is no differance between Genocide and ethnic cleansing, they are the same thing, But the UN charter has specific rules about GENOCIDE having been written in the aftermath of the Haulocaust, so when the Serbs in yugoslavia started killing everyone in sight the cowards of the UN came up with the weasel word "Ethnic Cleansing" to avoid having to do their duty to humanity, They were to busy looting the oil for food program to be bothered by doing the right thing, when they were finally shamed into doing something they took half measures that accomplished nothing until we intervened.
about your last line Alf, the dems see absolutly no differance between us going after bin Laden and his organization and Hitlers invasion of Poland, They even equate Gitmo with concentration camps, they are that screwed up.
Thats my view, I look forward to seeing what you have to say, but it will have to wait till tomorrow as I'm done in.
If any of you want to discuss any other period feel free Crusades could be interesting. See you in AM>
-
Ocin,
I just saw that you are in the Netherlands. Wow! We're international. Sorry for not catching on earlier. BTW I'm 1/4 Dutch. My great grandmother and grandmother immigrated here in the '20's (Dursma? was their name if you know any we may be related). You will definitely have an alternative perspective from most here. I would just like to point out the irony of the term "war crimes". If not engaged in "war" killing would be a crime regardless if it was a civilian or not. Just a thought. Hey, question. Do you have Cool Ranch Doritos or are they Cool American (in Denmark they're Cool American Doritos)?
Looks like The Netherlands is bigger then i thought :). But Duursma (I assume that Dursma is an Americanisation of this Dutch name) is a quite common name in The Netherlands, so you could have literally in the hundreds of kindsmen here :).
As for Doritos, that's all we have: Doritos. Not cool, American or otherwise. And with us they are more associated with Mexico then with the US. Apparently, given the current international climate, the US has lost at least some of its popularity here.
-
I love threads like this. And yes, Combat (“a Selmur Production!") and the Rat Patrol were two of my favorite shows! I wanted to be a captain in the US Marines because of shows like these and a couple of John Wayne movies. Ended up plugging a Les Paul Custom into a ‘62 Marshall instead. Sometimes I have regrets about not going to the USNA and into the Corp ... and selling that LP (and Jay has been at the crossroads is singing, "you know what I'm talkin' about").
My interest in modern firearms focused my reading on anything and everything about WW2, Korea and Vietnam. BTW … Has PBS ever done a documentary on how we won the Vietnam war? Too bad Giap's not alive to add commentary. That would open some folks eyes to what really happened.
Despite all my reading, I am still one ignorant sonofabitch. To this thread and the PBS show, I see history repeating itself.
The war in Europe was a group or multi-front effort to defeat Nazi Germany. Doubt that any one country (except possibly Germany) could have gone on alone to win. With that being said, it is VERY doubtful that ANY country could not have fought as successfully as they did without US support and supplies (including boat loads of the SPAM you can eat). Lucky break in the war when Hitler decided he wanted pelmeny and vodka instead of bangers and mash.
Ocin … “might have” and “with relative ease” and “ending the war without the US” is an interesting comment. However, your “hypotheticals” that England, France or anyone else that could have teamed up to successfully fight Hitler in ’39 didn’t happen because Europe didn’t want to fight and were unprepared to fight. They had just exited a war and had no interest to fight another. The “if England and France had stopped Hitler” comments are similar to saying “if frogs had wings they wouldn’t bump their asses when they jumped”.
This is where history will repeat itself. Europe was and is too passive. Too much “appeasement theology”. They were as unprepared to fight Hitler’s invasion as they are today to fight the Muslim invasion. Europe today has gone back a thousand or so years to the pre-Crusades period … and we all know what act in this twisted opera is about to follow. History will repeat. Europe dialed 911 for US help when soldiers were goose stepping down their streets and they will call when they get enough of the Islamo-nuts with their burkas clamped down too tight.
Ocin, your comments kind of hit a nerve with me. Your commentary of “war crimes” by the US ... typical anti-American, Euro-rhetoric that is not backed by fact. You have a computer and are capable of making toast so I will assume that you can look this shit up.
The fire bombings of Tokyo or Dresdan by definition did not meet the legal requirements for a “war crime”. Both areas had dedicated and defended manufacturing for their war effort (read once that Dresdan had a chem-warfare facility brewing). The only war crimes committed were that by the Nazis (and Japanese) when they utilized residential areas for production of their war effort. As to Japan, LeMay’s fire bombing and subsequent BBQ of Tokyo forced the Japanese to move their military facilities out to the hills and away from civilian populations. And yes, LeMay did once comment that had the US lost the war he expected to get tried as a “war criminal” but that was in reference to what the Japanese did to the Doolittle raiders. To this, unlike our enemies, our rules of engagement follow international law to a fault.
The atomic bombs that we lit up over Japan were not legal war crimes or moral crimes either. Shortly after Midway, Japan realized it would come down to fighting on their sacred homeland and had been preparing for an invasion. They rat-holed a lot of resources for that battle and were training everyone … including children from toddler age up on how to kill or wound that badass evil US Marine when he stepped ashore to invade mother-Japan. Japan was not going to surrender so our choices were to invade or drop the bomb(s). We dropped the bombs after telling them we would. Gave them a chance to surrender before the first and again after the first bomb. But the good little Bushido warriors that they were said “no”. Well have another mama-san.
We saved millions of American and Japanese lives by dropping the two atomic bombs. Had we invaded, hundreds of thousands of US lives would have been lost on the INITIAL DAY. If I recall, we are still using Purple Heart Medals that were made for the invasion of Japan. It also saved the lives of millions of Japanese that would have died had we invaded. Go figure. A military tactic that saved lives is a war crime.
But you know Ocin, I will “rain on your parade”. I really think the folks in The Netherlands should at some point say, “Hey America, thanks for supplying the Allies (such as Canada) with tanks, guns, air support and logistics so they were able to help free our country from the Nazis and giving us the cheese burger”. Maybe toss in a thanks for keeping Soviet tanks out of your back yard would be nice too. Instead, we hear anti-American bullshit. You want to talk about war crimes but you don’t say dick about anyone but the Americans? Hmmm? Little bias maybe? The Japanese were poster children for war crimes. Front page of the Tokyo newspapers used to have the scores for the “beheading contests”. The Japanese make the goat humping Islamo-nuts look like amateur boy-loving sissies. Of course, that's not too hard to do but that's a whole other thread topic.
When you wish to tee-up some anti-American commentary, try to back it with some facts. ;D
-
No offense Ron, but you might be being a LITTLE harsh on OCIN, I realize that after supplying more material than all the WESTERN allies (Russia made alot of stuff to, for themselves )combined, and rebuilding Western Europe, and then defending it against the Warsaw pact for several DECADES, we Americans may be a bit thin skinned about "war crimes" comments. But in Ocins defense I will point out that Gen. Lemay DID make that comment, which illustrates that history is written by the victors. Also, the Netherlands, for all its libralism is one of the more PRO american countries in Europe who show much more gratitude than some I could mention ( France )
As to the rest of your post, The plans for the invasion of Japan (Operation Sunrise ) called for one beach head to be assaulted by the Marine Corps, The ENTIRE Marine Corps, 6 Divisions. The planners thought that an "acceptable " rate of atrition would put American casualties at around 1 million.
I find it intrigueing that Japanese soldiers conducted themselves with the brutality that was documented. In WWI and previous conflicts while discipline was harsh, it was no worse than any other top military force. ( We ALL know of guys who got "counciling" behind the barracks ) Their treatment of prisoners had always previously been in accordance with international standards. Suddenly, under the same leadership that had commanded previously, they became "Yellow feinds from hell". It's as if the entire nation had a psychopathic episode.
German conduct is much easier to understand. They lost WWI because the entire nation was starving to death, then endured years of street fighting between communists and anti communists of every variety and an inflation rate that exceeded 100% When Hitler came along he offered Germans the 3 things that ALL craved, Stability for the economy, Order in the streets, and some one to blame all the bad stuff on.
-
No offense taken. We can disagree on my “harshness” but I think we agree on all of the points in between.
If someone wants to make claims of American “war crimes”, they have to back that up.
As to the LeMay comment, you will note that I was the one that brought that up. When the war-crime whine comes up (this is not an original argument) one of the talking points is to that LeMay quote. However when people read the whole quote they know that LeMay did not believe that the Tokyo BBQ was a war crime. Because it was not.
If anyone wants to claim that history is only written by the victors … they need to read more. I can’t recall any (modern) war that resulted in extinction for the losers. But that’s not really the point. The point is what are the facts and can they be backed up?
Lastly, I use to work for a large Dutch based company. Ocin’s comments are a rerun of the same bullshit I heard at business dinners. I was actually once asked about my thoughts on Bush killing Iraqis? I replied that I think a lot of Muslims need to die. I resigned shortly after that.
Anyone want to make claims of American war crimes? Man-up and back your thesis up.
-
No offense taken. We can disagree on my harshness but I think we agree on all of the points in between.
If someone wants to make claims of American war crimes, they have to back that up.
As to the LeMay comment, you will note that I was the one that brought that up. When the war-crime whine comes up (this is not an original argument) one of the talking points is to that LeMay quote. However when people read the whole quote they know that LeMay did not believe that the Tokyo BBQ was a war crime. Because it was not.
If anyone wants to claim that history is only written by the victors
they need to read more. I cant recall any (modern) war that resulted in extinction for the losers. But thats not really the point. The point is what are the facts and can they be backed up?
Lastly, I use to work for a large Dutch based company. Ocins comments are a rerun of the same bullshit I heard at business dinners. I was actually once asked about my thoughts on Bush killing Iraqis? I replied that I think a lot of Muslims need to die. I resigned shortly after that.
Anyone want to make claims of American war crimes? Man-up and back your thesis up.
Now that you mention it I read books by a couple of German Army Generals that I Don't remember the names of and "The First and the Last" by Gen. of Fighters Adolph Galland. There was one about Uboats as well I think.
But it is still true that while any one can write a book, in the immediate post war era, while the country is still occupied, at least until recently, you needed to more or less go with the Occupiers line if you wanted it to be published. If you look around you will notice that the first wave of German books about the ground war were mostly about the Eastern front and fighting the "Godless Communists" North Africa and the Air war are exceptions to this, as they were seen as being more "Chivalric" Gallnt foes charging each other on their shining steeds.
-
Lastly, I use to work for a large Dutch based company. Ocin’s comments are a rerun of the same bullshit I heard at business dinners. I was actually once asked about my thoughts on Bush killing Iraqis? I replied that I think a lot of Muslims need to die. I resigned shortly after that.
Ron, my hat is off to you for saying that. Thank you. And not at all too harsh, the euros do have a reality issue most of the time.
For the rest of you, here is Ocin's exact phrase from which I reversed the words to the "war crimes" .
Hazcat,
Interesting piece you wrote, but you forget 2 facts of war:
1) In war the first casualty is the truth
2) History is written by the victors.
Concerning 1): The french and British might have defeated the Germans in autumn 1939 with relative ease. All German armoured columns were fighting in Poland and the entire Ruhr area (then Germany's industrial heartland) could have been overrun if the French and British would have teamed up and broken through the Siegfried Line. (at that time the entire Ruhr area was defended by a small number of Landstorm units, poorly trained and equipped). Also they might have stopped the German Blitzkrieg in may/june 1940 by deploying better tactics and co-operation. Just imagine, ending the war on the European theatre, all without the help of the US...
Concerning 2): Over japan the US Air Force used unprecedented quantities of incindiary bombs to lay waste to the Japanese cities, indiscimminately destroying millitary installations, factories but also temples, hospitals and entire highly poputated civillian housing (with the civilians still in it). And, not forgetting the 2 nuclear devices om Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I know, I know, without those 2 a-bombs an invasion would have been necessary, ending in even more civilian casualties, but still, firebombing civilian areas and eradicating entite cities is nothing less that a direct crime of war...
Ocin
-
We may have fire bombed an Nuked, but we did not take hostages to ensure civilian cooperation (we did not have to ) and while an occasional prisoner may have got shot, we did not organize firing parties to do it as happened to the 99th div. and if a German prisoner made it off the front lines he was safe, unlike Rangers and Commandos who were shot by the Gestapo on Hitlers direct orders.
And just for clarification I agree with what Ron said, It just seemed like he was blaming Ocin personally for a generation (or 2) of European kids having their heads filled with socialist bullshit by teachers who were old enough to know it was bullshit.
Was it nathan Bedford Forrest who said " War means Fighting, and fighting means killing. "
Personaly I think the most horrible "Crime" commited by the Allied high command was the suppression of information about the "Leopouldville"
Many members of the American Panther (9th?) division died when their troop ship was torpedoed during a Christmas eve rehearsal for the invasion by a U boat that should NOT have been able to penetrate the destroyer screen. For decades US and British Officials denied it happened, Families did not know the true circumstances of their loved ones deaths until a couple years ago. THATs a crime.
-
You misunderstand about the smartest guy in the room thing. I to read everything I could get my hands on about WWII with emphisis on the air war and Marines, Far from trying to be the smartest guy in the room I'm thrilled to finally have people like you guys with whom I can discuss more than the few basic subjects covered on the History Channel, If I talked like this to anyone else I would get a blank stare, You are the first person I have heard state My belief that the "Cold War never ended, it just evolved, and Even with the Soviet Union gone Russia is NOT our freind regardless of what our Government may think. I HOPE you have views that differ from mine, as it makes me think.
Yes this is all in the past, but there are valuable lessons to be drawn from the past that will be lost if people like you and I do not keep them alive. For example, The Chamberlain lesson, You can not negotiate with someone who sees diplomacy as another form of warfare as he will ALWAYS negotiate in bad faith.
If my opening post sounded arrogent I apologize, but I wanted to establish that I had more information than just acouple of history channel shows and watching Combat, (Do you remember that, and Rat Patrol ?) I also wanted to establish that my comments were based on a judgement about numbers and capabilities, not knee jerk reaction. If I offended you I'm sorry, I hope I have cleared up any miss conception. If you or anyone else has an opinion or detail that I've missed or a point of view that differs from mine PLEASE bring it on, I would love to discuss, not argue, not debate, but discuss this or any other period in history, If we don't discuss them the lessons of history are lost, and must be relearned at similar or greater cost.
To bring in the point that alfack is making in the post after yours Hitler and Saddam Hussien (That name agian ;D) were both Bas.. Bad guys, what Hitler did to the Jews, Saddam did in a cruder fashion to the Marsh Arabs and the Kurds, were we right to remove Hitler yes, were we right to remove Saddam, I believe we were, That does not change the fact that Hitler killed 6 million Jews and about 2 million "Others" Gays, Gypsies, political opponents etc. while Stalin killed about 20 million of his own people just out of paranioa. dos that mean we should not have used Stalin in our efforts against Hitler, No, Stalin was not at war with Japan, he was fighting on one front while we were trying to protect the entire world,as we still are it is not possible to be strong every where all the time, so we have to pick the battles we think we can win to nibble away at the enemies strengths. During WWII that meat carpet bombing industrial centers and transportation networks and leaving the enemies tanks and troops starved for supplies, witness Rommels campaign in North Africa, whenever he had adaquet supplies of fuel he kicked butt, however his supply lines were vulnerable, When they were cut by Air and sea power he was done, in the retreat from Alamien many of his surviving tanks had to be towed or abandoned due to lack of fuel, when that happened he was all done.
Today in the war on terror we are smashing the Taliban in Afghanistan and Al queda in Iraq, the insurgents are not relevent, just an annoyance in our pursuit of the foriegn terrorists drawn there by our presence, they are our REAL initial target. Iraq is made up of three more or less equally matched ethnic groups who are vieing for control of the oil revenuesThey will fight it out among themselves and there is nothing we can do to stop them, THEY have to settle their differances just like we had our own Civil war. The PEOPLE were not the bad guys, they were the victims, the majority of Iraqi's are standing beside us against the true agressors, the fanats from Syria pakistan and Suadi Arabia who use suicide bombers and cut peoples heads off. The Iraqi PEOPLE are no differant than the Germans who served against us in 41-45 and beside us from 46 on. Their focus never changed, they were defending their country. There is a second level to Americas Iraq stratagy that becomes apparent when you look at a map, our presence in Iraq and Afghanistan puts us with in easy striking distance of both Iran and Syria 2 more country's in the web of extremism, oppresion and WMD, these are countries we could not easily reach otherwise, both have Nuke programs if not functional weapons, these are countries we have been at war with to one degree or another since the late 70's but we could not get to them, now we are much better positioned to deal with any threat they might pose.
I still haven't been to bed so I'm going to cut this off here because I want to address two comments that alfack uses in his post,
First there is no differance between Genocide and ethnic cleansing, they are the same thing, But the UN charter has specific rules about GENOCIDE having been written in the aftermath of the Haulocaust, so when the Serbs in yugoslavia started killing everyone in sight the cowards of the UN came up with the weasel word "Ethnic Cleansing" to avoid having to do their duty to humanity, They were to busy looting the oil for food program to be bothered by doing the right thing, when they were finally shamed into doing something they took half measures that accomplished nothing until we intervened.
about your last line Alf, the dems see absolutly no differance between us going after bin Laden and his organization and Hitlers invasion of Poland, They even equate Gitmo with concentration camps, they are that screwed up.
Thats my view, I look forward to seeing what you have to say, but it will have to wait till tomorrow as I'm done in.
If any of you want to discuss any other period feel free Crusades could be interesting. See you in AM>
Tom,
Please pardon my inability to adequately express what I was trying to say. The smartest guy in the room thing was for the thesis fella, not you. I live in a college town (I friend and I refer to it as Berkley East) and come into contact with a lot of the smartest guy types explaining just about anything you can imagine. So my fuse is a bit short when I come across it. Sorry. And thanks to everyone for a great place to discuss and vent.
-
Our soldiers today have to exercise more restraint than at any other time of combat. We use smart bombs to limit civilian losses, strategic "surgical" strikes to limit "collateral damage" When the Greatest Generation was involved, domestic car production stopped, victory gardens were grown, new tires were hard to get, scrap metal collectors went through neighborhoods, and we had the support of the MSM. Bulk food items were in essence "rationed" to keep the troops fed.
The bottom line is we carpet bombed much of Occupied Europe and Japan, because:
"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."
General MacArthur
Did civilians die? You bet. As many wiser than me have stated "War is Hell" The US military today has shown more restraint in this war on terror than at any other time in history. Unlike the cowardly suicide bombers, and one's that fight from a schoolhouse full of women and children.
We can't fight a total war anymore, we can't turn cities into flaming wreckage. Denigrating a country into surrender doesn't work anymore. There's always the UN approach, right up there with appeasement. Look how Iran is listening to the UN.
That's another thread entirely.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
"The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank GOD for the United States Marine Corps."
Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945
-
Tom,
Please pardon my inability to adequately express what I was trying to say. The smartest guy in the room thing was for the thesis fella, not you. I live in a college town (I friend and I refer to it as Berkley East) and come into contact with a lot of the smartest guy types explaining just about anything you can imagine. So my fuse is a bit short when I come across it. Sorry. And thanks to everyone for a great place to discuss and vent.
God protect us from the PhD "experts"
Our soldiers today have to exercise more restraint than at any other time of combat. We use smart bombs to limit civilian losses, strategic "surgical" strikes to limit "collateral damage" When the Greatest Generation was involved, domestic car production stopped, victory gardens were grown, new tires were hard to get, scrap metal collectors went through neighborhoods, and we had the support of the MSM. Bulk food items were in essence "rationed" to keep the troops fed.
The bottom line is we carpet bombed much of Occupied Europe and Japan, because:
"It is fatal to enter any war without the will to win it."General MacArthur
Did civilians die? You bet. As many wiser than me have stated "War is Hell" The US military today has shown more restraint in this war on terror than at any other time in history. Unlike the cowardly suicide bombers, and one's that fight from a schoolhouse full of women and children.
We can't fight a total war anymore, we can't turn cities into flaming wreckage. Denigrating a country into surrender doesn't work anymore. There's always the UN approach, right up there with appeasement. Look how Iran is listening to the UN.
That's another thread entirely.
War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.
John Stuart Mill (1806 - 1873)
"The Marines I have seen around the world have the cleanest bodies, the filthiest minds, the highest morale, and the lowest morals of any group of animals I have ever seen. Thank GOD for the United States Marine Corps."
Eleanor Roosevelt, 1945
He may have been an abrasive, pompuos, SOB, But he was also a genius, it seems those 3 traits often go together. Now if we could just explain this seemingly basic fact to our politicians.
-
Hey Tom I got that PhD psychologicaly Disturbed ;D
-
"Personaly I think the most horrible "Crime" commited by the Allied high command was the suppression of information about the "Leopouldville"
Many members of the American Panther (9th?) division died when their troop ship was torpedoed during a Christmas eve rehearsal for the invasion by a U boat that should NOT have been able to penetrate the destroyer screen. For decades US and British Officials denied it happened, Families did not know the true circumstances of their loved ones deaths until a couple years ago. THATs a crime."
Tom ... was that what they later said was a "training accident" where 5,000 died?
-
Yes, Some accident :-\