IT'S ALL ONE 'WAR' PBS SHOW TO ARGUE ALLIES AS BAD AS NAZIS

[tombogan03884]

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.

[mosbear]

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 

A+++

[Ocin]

Ocin,

I did not write it.

OOPS!! Sorry 

[Hazcat]

OOPS!! Sorry 

No problem.  Just didn't want you thinking I knew how to write.

[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.

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 

Ocin

[Sponsor]

[Bill Stryker]

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?

[tombogan03884]

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 

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.

[brosometal]

I would like to thank everyone for their versions of history   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.

[alfack]

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.

[brosometal]

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)?