PDA

View Full Version : Enola-Gay video, disturbing but interesting



smoker1911
03-18-2008, 08:54 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4q1OUK32Rk&feature=related

More

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcUu8xNhQ-E&feature=related

Jaws2002
03-18-2008, 09:59 PM
More disturbing then interesting in my opinion.

BoCfuss
03-18-2008, 10:20 PM
I don't see the difference between 1 bomb killing thousands and a thousand bombs killing thousands. I find all war deaths "disturbing" if not justified by on side or the other. Its just a matter of what side you are on.

jadger
03-19-2008, 01:56 AM
that's a pretty gay song, pardon the pun. Who seriously likes that 80s techno **** anymore?

WN_Barbarossa
03-19-2008, 02:44 AM
That song deserves capital punishment.

Pirschjaeger
03-19-2008, 06:34 AM
Disturbing is an understatement.

Whether it be the systematic killing with gas, bullets, or nukes, in the end the only differences are the perpetrators who are in denial and the perpetrators who admit to their mistakes.

There can be no justification for the killing of innocent women, children, babies, and the elderly.

Any justification becomes synonymous with denial.

To hell with all the perpetrators.

Fritz

SeaFireLIV
03-19-2008, 08:56 AM
Originally posted by BoCfuss:
I don't see the difference between 1 bomb killing thousands and a thousand bombs killing thousands. I find all war deaths "disturbing" if not justified by on side or the other. Its just a matter of what side you are on.

I see a difference.

A thousand bombs being dropped takes time to deploy, a large logistics effort comprising hundreds if not thousands of people. All this increases time and can be aborted as unnescessary given time and thought.

An atom bomb or nuclear bomb is quickly deployed by few personell and destroys an entire central city or area within a fraction of the time of conventional `thousands of bombs`.

Also, anything within ground zero and 5 miles outward (or more) is dead or dying. Multiple dropped conventioanl bombs, though it may kill many, allows people a chance at survival within a specific time, even if small without the long term radioactive effects generally.

I haven`t looked at the link though.

Bremspropeller
03-19-2008, 11:56 AM
There is no difference..dead is dead, gone is gone.

No matter if you were nuked, burnt to death, buried by debris or torn apart by shrapnell.

ARCHIE_CALVERT
03-19-2008, 01:02 PM
Originally posted by jadger:
that's a pretty gay song, pardon the pun. Who seriously likes that 80s techno **** anymore?

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

jadger
03-19-2008, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
There is no difference..dead is dead, gone is gone.

No matter if you were nuked, burnt to death, buried by debris or torn apart by shrapnell.

yes, but his point is that if you drop 500 conventional bombs when you plan to drop 1500, and they surrender after 500 being dropped, you have then saved the lives of the people who might have died in the additional 1000 bomb drops, whereas there is no ability to stop an atom bomb from killing everyone.

Urufu_Shinjiro
03-19-2008, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
There is no difference..dead is dead, gone is gone.

No matter if you were nuked, burnt to death, buried by debris or torn apart by shrapnell.

yes, but his point is that if you drop 500 conventional bombs when you plan to drop 1500, and they surrender after 500 being dropped, you have then saved the lives of the people who might have died in the additional 1000 bomb drops, whereas there is no ability to stop an atom bomb from killing everyone. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ofcourse, along those lines lies the arguments that were used to allow this to happen, i.e. the lives that were saved by avoiding the surely absolutely disasterous invasion of japan. With the propaganda involved and the japanese mindset there would have been more women and children killed in an invasion of japan than if there were 5 nukes dropped. I've studied the japanese alot and trust me, every man woman and child tall enough to pick up a weapon would have fought to the very end if we had invaded. Those that would not or could not fight would have commited mass suicide rather than be conquered in an invasion. Not to mention the losses to the invading personnel.

DuxCorvan
03-19-2008, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by jadger:
that's a pretty gay song, pardon the pun. Who seriously likes that 80s techno **** anymore?

Not my cup of tea, but still prefer that 80s techno **** to the 70s metal **** that is so praised around here.

jadger
03-20-2008, 12:00 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
that's a pretty gay song, pardon the pun. Who seriously likes that 80s techno **** anymore?

Not my cup of tea, but still prefer that 80s techno **** to the 70s metal **** that is so praised around here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hey!!! Led Zep will never die!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

knightflyte
03-20-2008, 07:15 PM
Geee. I wonder if the Japanese Military would have used the bomb if they had it? Hitler? Hmmmmmmmmmm. I'd bet yes.

Let's not fool ourselves with the U.S. being the only country that would have executed this bombing.

It's easy to sit back after 63 years have passed in comfy chairs drinking your favorite drink in a warm home, and pass judgement.

Was it horrific and tragic? EXTREMELY! I'd even call it shameful, but I think war itself is shameful.

Before you pass judgement consider if someone else had the bomb.

Japan demonstrated their cruelty in the Baataan death marches and with the raping pillaging and murdering of countless Chinese citizens. The list could go on.

Germany? Auschwitz. Nuff said.

Not one of the three powers if they had the bomb would have stayed their hand from using it.

You need someone to blame? Truman. The buck stopped there.

RAF_OldBuzzard
03-21-2008, 04:02 AM
It was war...total war...not the politically correct skirmishes that started with the Korean conflict, and continue to this day.

You can not judge their actions by todays standards. At that time, it was the proper thing to do. In todays culture and political climate it's unthinkable. But don't be too complacent. Times change, and thinking changes, and someday in the future dropping a nuke MAY be the proper action.

Given the time and events, I see no difference between killing 80K with one bomb at Hiroshima, and killing 100K in one night of fire bombing Tokyo.

Urufu_Shinjiro
03-21-2008, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
It was war...total war...not the politically correct skirmishes that started with the Korean conflict, and continue to this day.

You can not judge their actions by todays standards. At that time, it was the proper thing to do. In todays culture and political climate it's unthinkable. But don't be too complacent. Times change, and thinking changes, and someday in the future dropping a nuke MAY be the proper action.

Given the time and events, I see no difference between killing 80K with one bomb at Hiroshima, and killing 100K in one night of fire bombing Tokyo.

QFT, we don't understand the concept of total war anymore. War now is merely one group fighting another group for a local goal and when the more "civilized" engage in war it's merely "Lets do what we need to do and cause as little global trouble as we can" (at least publicly, which in turn does limit the actions and scope of the conflict). In WWII the germans and the japanese were literally out to conquer the world! Everybody was fighting in the end not because it was the right thing to do, or because they were assisting thier allies, they were fighting for thier very existance as a political state! The US was in very real danger from the japanese, if the carriers had been in pearl harber we might be speaking German or japanese or both right now. Most these days find it hard to imagine this.

Bewolf
03-21-2008, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
It was war...total war...not the politically correct skirmishes that started with the Korean conflict, and continue to this day. There are many good reasons for going into this war, valid and more important ones then the "conquer the world" line, still it's used again and again.

You can not judge their actions by todays standards. At that time, it was the proper thing to do. In todays culture and political climate it's unthinkable. But don't be too complacent. Times change, and thinking changes, and someday in the future dropping a nuke MAY be the proper action.

Given the time and events, I see no difference between killing 80K with one bomb at Hiroshima, and killing 100K in one night of fire bombing Tokyo.

QFT, we don't understand the concept of total war anymore. War now is merely one group fighting another group for a local goal and when the more "civilized" engage in war it's merely "Lets do what we need to do and cause as little global trouble as we can" (at least publicly, which in turn does limit the actions and scope of the conflict). In WWII the germans and the japanese were literally out to conquer the world! Everybody was fighting in the end not because it was the right thing to do, or because they were assisting thier allies, they were fighting for thier very existance as a political state! The US was in very real danger from the japanese, if the carriers had been in pearl harber we might be speaking German or japanese or both right now. Most these days find it hard to imagine this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is pretty much nonsense. At no time was the US directly threatend. Neither Japan nor Germany had the capability to invade the US, nor anytime soon. They didn't even have an interest in that. Both wanted to have their territory enlarged, the germans in Russia, the japanese in China, and hegemony over their sphere of influence.

The comparison is further flawed in that during the times the bombings were at their worst, both Japan and Germany were on their knees already. The heaviest bombings of Germany were conducted in 1945.

The A bomb over Japan is often justified with the argument that it saved millions of lifes. The truth is, though, that Japan was willing to end the war before that already. They just insisted on the Emperor staying in power, which the allies didn't want to accept. And unlike Hitler in Germany, Hiroito was more a puppet then a driving force behind the war.

Pirschjaeger
03-22-2008, 12:17 PM
Originally posted by knightflyte:
Geee. I wonder if the Japanese Military would have used the bomb if they had it? Hitler? Hmmmmmmmmmm. I'd bet yes.

That's an interesting point. Germany flew over New York. Japan sent weather balloons over the US that would drop small bombs in the hopes of starting forest fires.

Having said that, both the Japanese and the Germans had the technology and the means to drop poison on the American population.

Why didn't they?


Originally posted by knightflyte:
Before you pass judgement consider if someone else had the bomb.

Many have had the bombs for many years now.


Originally posted by knightflyte:
Japan demonstrated their cruelty in the Baataan death marches and with the raping pillaging and murdering of countless Chinese citizens. The list could go on.

How many of those Japanese were women, children, and babies?

If you are referring to Nanjing, then the estimates range from 150k to 300k.


Originally posted by knightflyte:
Germany? Auschwitz. Nuff said.

Is that some sort of justification? If so, then by your standards, the Nazis were doing what they had to do.


Originally posted by knightflyte:
Not one of the three powers if they had the bomb would have stayed their hand from using it..

They didn't do what they were cabable of. Both had access to American airspace. Yet they didn't use it, even in desperation.


Originally posted by knightflyte:
You need someone to blame? Truman. The buck stopped there.

Need someone to blame? They are almost all dead. It's not about blaming. My rant is about the attempts to justify acts of pure cowardice and contempt for human life and life in general.

The buck does not stop with Truman. What about the thousands involved? Do you honestly think the people making the bomb didn't know what it was for?

Have you ever considered the money, material, and manpower used to make the bomb? It was much more than needed to end the war with conventional methods.

Maybe the reason you got defensive is because of a sort of habit that people have today. While only some admit it, most will not admit their common associations made between today's Germans and Jew-killers and today's Japanese and Chinese-killers.

Had the nuking of the innocent been put to a referrendum, the vast majority of American people would have voted against it. This was the main reason for the secrecy.

The same could be said for the Germans and Japanese. Had the plans been put to referendum for public voting, neither would have happened.

So the shoe is on the other foot and it doesn't feel comfortable does it?

You and Americans today are no more to blame for the bombing of Japan than are today's Germans and Japanese are for their countries' dirty pasts. Take it from a German. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

My point was rather simple. Whether you are carpet bombing or nuking or rounding up and murdering women and children, you are bound to get an unconditional surrender. To me targeting women and children is total cowardice and most shameful, whether it's done by the Axis or the Allies.

It is when we can justify these crimes that they can be repeated.

Fritz

Badsight-
03-22-2008, 01:25 PM
in the first video from the OP , their was a cgi sequence of the bomb firing

what video/movie was that from ?

luftluuver
03-22-2008, 01:41 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
That's an interesting point. Germany flew over New York. Japan sent weather balloons over the US that would drop small bombs in the hopes of starting forest fires.

Having said that, both the Japanese and the Germans had the technology and the means to drop poison on the American population.

Why didn't they?
You don't believe that myth of a German a/c coming within 12 miles of New York do you? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Hitler had been gassed during WW1 and would only have use gas if the Allies did.

Pirschjaeger
03-22-2008, 02:04 PM
So you are saying Hitler would have used the bomb only if the Allies did first?

Since gassing is not nearly as effective as nukes for killing en mass, and you claimed Hitler was too squeamish to use it, then you must be saying there's no chance he'd ever have used nukes even if he had them. Is this right?

Not sure I get your points.

As for the Luftwaffe over New York, I only know about this from a documentary I have. Bewolf told that it's been debated over whether it really happened or not. It becomes more interesting.

But you don't need a long range bomber to launch a gas attack. But still, if Hitler had wanted to bomb New York, he would have only had to wait a year at most before he'd have been presented with one.

He had a way of getting weapons when he wanted them.

Badsight-
03-22-2008, 02:11 PM
the Me264 , which was designed to get to america & back , couldnt

willy m made promises he couldnt match

there was no nuclear bomb group working in germany that was on the path to making one . experimenting yes

I_KG100_Prien
03-22-2008, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Urufu_Shinjiro:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
It was war...total war...not the politically correct skirmishes that started with the Korean conflict, and continue to this day. There are many good reasons for going into this war, valid and more important ones then the "conquer the world" line, still it's used again and again.

You can not judge their actions by todays standards. At that time, it was the proper thing to do. In todays culture and political climate it's unthinkable. But don't be too complacent. Times change, and thinking changes, and someday in the future dropping a nuke MAY be the proper action.

Given the time and events, I see no difference between killing 80K with one bomb at Hiroshima, and killing 100K in one night of fire bombing Tokyo.

QFT, we don't understand the concept of total war anymore. War now is merely one group fighting another group for a local goal and when the more "civilized" engage in war it's merely "Lets do what we need to do and cause as little global trouble as we can" (at least publicly, which in turn does limit the actions and scope of the conflict). In WWII the germans and the japanese were literally out to conquer the world! Everybody was fighting in the end not because it was the right thing to do, or because they were assisting thier allies, they were fighting for thier very existance as a political state! The US was in very real danger from the japanese, if the carriers had been in pearl harber we might be speaking German or japanese or both right now. Most these days find it hard to imagine this. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That is pretty much nonsense. At no time was the US directly threatend. Neither Japan nor Germany had the capability to invade the US, nor anytime soon. They didn't even have an interest in that. Both wanted to have their territory enlarged, the germans in Russia, the japanese in China, and hegemony over their sphere of influence.

The comparison is further flawed in that during the times the bombings were at their worst, both Japan and Germany were on their knees already. The heaviest bombings of Germany were conducted in 1945.

The A bomb over Japan is often justified with the argument that it saved millions of lifes. The truth is, though, that Japan was willing to end the war before that already. They just insisted on the Emperor staying in power, which the allies didn't want to accept. And unlike Hitler in Germany, Hiroito was more a puppet then a driving force behind the war. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, the US was not directly threatened. We tried to stay out of it, but it was shown that isolationism wasn't going to succeed. So we got involved, and aided our allies. We did what we felt was the right thing to do at the time.

It's pretty easy for people so sit back and hindsight analyze like shown here. Then, it wasn't so easy.

Quite frankly this just stinks further of the popular trend these days for other countries to demonize the U.S in any way they can.

Pirschjaeger
03-22-2008, 02:19 PM
I don't think anyone's trying to demonize the US.

It's more of the demonization of certain unnecessary tactics. We can always say war is war, but there are limits to everything.

As long as you have Bush, who needs to demonize the US? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

joeap
03-22-2008, 02:21 PM
Let me interject that the non-use of gas or biological weapons against the US by the Axis is not any proof of humanitarianism. I think they didn't have the means nor saw the use of them. I mean if Germany wanted to use gas it would have made more sense to use it on the Eastern Front...at least IMHO. Gas was not a very effective weapon it seems to me in WWI so why would they use it? Gas dropped from ballons is even more laughable.

In no way do I mean to excuse Allied crimes by writing this btw.

I_KG100_Prien
03-22-2008, 02:22 PM
Yeah, it is.

Big bad guys used the big bad A-bomb and killed thousands of people. They shouldn't have done that.

Perhaps thats true, but as it stands it happened. It's said and done. No amount of debate will undo it. The mentality back then was total war. Crush 'em and rebuild 'em how we want them to be.

Today some things have changed. We have the tools to minimize collateral damage while trying to get our point across.

What about Bush? How about our "new" congress that got voted into power last year.. Their approval rating is lower than his. Because they have been incapable of doing anything they "promised" to do (go figure, politicians lie?). All they've done is get into pissing matches with the President- Wasting hours and hours coming up with legislation they KNEW would get the Veto.

On top of that one of their solutions was trying to financially castrate the poor SOB's that are currently just trying to do their jobs- Despite it's unpopularity.

Not one person has come up with any concrete solution to try to get things in hand. All that has been offered up is empty promises that have no hope to deliver how the people think they will.

There is more evil in the world than just one man.

Pirschjaeger
03-22-2008, 02:32 PM
True.

It's just a bit spooky when people try to justify what happened. It's not about who did it. It's about what has happened. When we can comfortably justify such a horrific event, what's to stop us from doing it again?

As for the current US politics, what if Ron Paul got in? According to what he says, he'd turn the clock back to ten minutes after the Constitution was accepted.

Do you think it could work?

Badsight-
03-22-2008, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Do you think it could work?
your an idealist http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

not knocking you for this - no way! , but groups havent put 200 years of effort to get where we are today to see one guy come along & wreck it all

BoCfuss
03-22-2008, 03:21 PM
I still see nothing "wrong" with dropping a bomb, no matter what kind, on your enemies in war. I just guess we have different views on what war is.

It wasn't fair, is what it sounds like you are saying. There is no right and wrong in war.

DuxCorvan
03-22-2008, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by jadger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
that's a pretty gay song, pardon the pun. Who seriously likes that 80s techno **** anymore?

Not my cup of tea, but still prefer that 80s techno **** to the 70s metal **** that is so praised around here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


Hey!!! Led Zep will never die!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Led Zeppelin is NOT heavy metal, mein Gott.

RAF_OldBuzzard
03-23-2008, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:...Had the nuking of the innocent been put to a referrendum, the vast majority of American people would have voted against it. This was the main reason for the secrecy.

You have GOT to be kidding. Not only would they have voted to drop the Nuke, they would have voted to carpet bomb Japan with nukes if possible. You are woefully ignorant of the thinking and social climate of the time.

The reason for the secrecy was simple. If the other side would have gotten Nukes first, they would have used them first.

You have the same problem that so many have. You can't put aside your own idealism, and see the world thru the eyes of others. The times were different. The thinking then was "The only good Jap is a dead Jap".

I know that a lot of it is "but it was innocent women and children". That's true, but what about the "women and children" in London, or Nanking? You have to remember, in war, the aggressor sets the rules. The axis gave us London, Coventry, and Nanking...we gave them Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

WWII wasn't Olympic Boxing with 3 rounds, head pads, and rules. It was a bar fight. No holds barred, winner is the last man standing.

If you can't understand that, then you won't understand history.

DuxCorvan
03-23-2008, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:...Had the nuking of the innocent been put to a referrendum, the vast majority of American people would have voted against it. This was the main reason for the secrecy.

You have GOT to be kidding. Not only would they have voted to drop the Nuke, they would have voted to carpet bomb Japan with nukes if possible. You are woefully ignorant of the thinking and social climate of the time. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Sorry, Pirsch, but before the times of political correctness, hippy-go-happy and TV news dramma, to dehumanize the enemy was fairly easy and not frowned upon at all. Showing mercy looked even suspicious.

Don't judge past times with today's sensitivity. Many people would have had roasted Japanese babies for lunch and have made a party about it. And the same the other way round, in Japan.

luftluuver
03-23-2008, 03:38 PM
+1 http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif OldBuzzard.

Pirschjaeger
03-23-2008, 04:23 PM
Buzzard and Dux,

I understand what you guys are saying, but there's a difference between "Bombing the enemy" and "specifically targeting women and children".

People would have voted in favor of the bombing an enemy city but if they understood that it was actually women and children being targeted, I don't think the majority would have gone with it.

The wording makes all the difference. This thread makes it obvious.

Luftluuver,

thanks for your invaluable insight. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Fritz

luftluuver
03-23-2008, 05:10 PM
Any time Fritz. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Pirschjaeger
03-23-2008, 05:27 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

BTW, does anyone know the exact reasons those two cities were chosen? Was it to do with weaknesses in defenses?

Fritz

R_Target
03-23-2008, 06:01 PM
Targets were selected months ahead of time by the Target Committee under General Groves. From the Los Alamos site:


The Target Committee

The targets for the Little Boy and Fat Man had been selected months earlier. A committee formed by General Groves selected four cities based on the following criteria:

1. Targets had to possess sentimental value in the mind of the Japanese people.
2. Targets had to have some military significance.
3. Targets had to be largely intact, to demonstrate the awesome destructive power of an atomic bomb.
4. The target had to be large in size, suitable for attack by a weapon of an atomic bomb's magnitude.

Hiroshima was selected because it was the largest target available with the largest population. In addition, it served as a port of embarkation for the Japanese Army and was an industrial center, complete with large factories and many smaller production facilities. Hiroshima was also the headquarters of the Japanese 2nd Army, which stood poised to meet an Allied invasion.

Strength or weakness of air defenses appears to have had little to do with target choice. Additionally, recon overflights by singles or small flights of B-29s was routine and probably wouldn't warrant an interception.

Hiroshima was the primary for Enola Gay, and Kokura was the primary for Bock's Car, with Nagasaki the secondary.

WN_Barbarossa
03-23-2008, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
The axis gave us London, Coventry, and Nanking...we gave them Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.


I always wondered why is the bombing of Coventry so hyped. I mean London - tens of thousands of casualties, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ditto, Dresden and Nanking 100.000+.
But AFAIK only 568 people died during the raid on Coventry - in WW2 occasionally more French or Belgian civilians died when Allied bombing formations missed their target. Still Coventry is a kind of a legend.

luftluuver
03-23-2008, 06:11 PM
Has anyone told you your sig is too large Fritz?

Signatures
The total size of graphics in the signature, even if it is made up of several individual graphic files, must not exceed a total of 60kb in file size, and all image files together must fit within a 500 pixels wide x 150 pixels tall box.

Yours is 500x 199.

Pirschjaeger
03-23-2008, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by luftluuver:
Has anyone told you your sig is too large Fritz?

Signatures
The total size of graphics in the signature, even if it is made up of several individual graphic files, must not exceed a total of 60kb in file size, and all image files together must fit within a 500 pixels wide x 150 pixels tall box.

Yours is 500x 199.

You'd be the first. When did the regs change?

BTW, relax, Taggie should be back soon. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Fritz

BTOG46
03-23-2008, 06:47 PM
They've had those limits a while now, but recently they've started enforcing them :
http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/6921088204/m/4231052146

Pirschjaeger
03-23-2008, 06:58 PM
Good timing. I've been thinking of making a new sig for the last few days. I've had that one for a long time. I usually don't keep them so long.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
03-23-2008, 07:05 PM
Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
I always wondered why is the bombing of Coventry so hyped. I mean London - tens of thousands of casualties, Hiroshima, Nagasaki ditto, Dresden and Nanking 100.000+.
But AFAIK only 568 people died during the raid on Coventry - in WW2 occasionally more French or Belgian civilians died when Allied bombing formations missed their target. Still Coventry is a kind of a legend.

Maybe it's residual propaganda? They used Coventry as the excuse to start bombing German cities.

Fritz

I_KG100_Prien
03-23-2008, 08:56 PM
Winning a war is sometimes more than just defeating a countries military. It's also about breaking the backbone of the country itself. If this means burning the populace out of house and home, then so be it.

That was, of course Hitlers intention behind "The Blitz". He wanted to demoralize the British citizens. He thought if he could break their will to support the war they would plead to the governing body to give it up.

We were able to win WW2 because we took a "No B.S" approach to it. We saw a couple of antagonistic national leaders that needed to have their Pee Pee smacked.. So, we smacked them, cut them off, and ground them into the dirt. Just to get the point across. It's like being picked on by a bully as a kid.. If you just say stop that please, or I'll tell the teacher.. He's not going to quit. You tell the teacher.. He does it when the teacher isn't looking. You take a tire iron and bash his ribcage in, kill his dog, and burn the shrubs in his yard.. He's going to leave you alone. Perhaps even decide to be your friend. (Good to have strong friends no?)

It's no small secret that the A-Bombs weren't THE deciding factor. They were merely the Coup De Grace. The constant firebombing of paper houses prior to the Atom-Split was the lead up. Well, that and the destruction and isolation from the resources they needed to carry on. Break the industry, break the will of the people.

Is it a crappy outlook, and a view into the brutality of mankind? Sure is. The cliche of "Looking at History" once again applies here.. One takes notice that we've been killing each other for various reasons since time immortal. It'll happen again too. There is no War but Total War. It's not nice- never has been..

I can't think of anything pleasant about running cold steel through another mans heart.. All the while he glares at you with that "Why?" look in his eyes. But- given the reasons and opportunity I would do it to without thought. Because I believe in fighting back- and dirty.

Pirschjaeger
03-23-2008, 09:44 PM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
We were able to win WW2 because we took a "No B.S" approach to it. We saw a couple of antagonistic national leaders that needed to have their Pee Pee smacked.. So, we smacked them, cut them off, and ground them into the dirt. Just to get the point across.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

Bruce Willis?

Fritz

RAF_OldBuzzard
03-24-2008, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
If we'd taken the peace-nik pacifist approach that all the pot-smoking tree huggers like.. The whole business would have drawn out a lot longer than it had to...

Which is exactly what Neville Chamberlain tried to do in 1938:

http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Neville_Chamberlain...r_Our_Time%22_speech (http://eudocs.lib.byu.edu/index.php/Neville_Chamberlain's_%22Peace_For_Our_Time%22_spe ech)

Idealism is nice, but asking the bad guy to play nice and sit around singing Kumbya has never worked, and never will work. He will sing along with you just long enough to lull you to sleep, and then hit you up side the head with a 2x4.

Bewolf
03-24-2008, 10:03 AM
It is interesting that the blames for these atrocities are countered with reasons to start and wage that war to begin with. As if once it started, everything is justifyable. With that kind of thinking, the Nazis could never be charged of anything, because they followed exactly that logic.

Bearcat99
03-24-2008, 08:03 PM
Oh man.. no wonder I couldn't find my post... sorry Prien.. I edited your post by mistake.. I meant to quote it.. It was at the top of this page... I deleted the post since it actually made no sense after my gaff.... sorry about that man... I hope you can remember what you wrote..

[We were able to win WW2 because we took a "No B.S" approach to it. We saw a couple of antagonistic national leaders that needed to have their Pee Pee smacked.. So, we smacked them, cut them off, and ground them into the dirt. JusQUOTE]Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
t to get the point across. [/QUOTE]

That is so silly and it trivializes the entire war effort.. I know that isn't what you meant but it does.. We.. meaning the allies won the war largely because WE meaning the US were able to have our infrastructure basically untouched with a labor force that was able to produce goo gobs of needed war material not to mention warm bodies to fight... and the enemy spread itself way too thin fighting too many people on too many fronts- and did not have the same luxury... plus they made some key blunders at the wrong time.... and their racist ideology was flawed from the start.

I think that if they had the same material resources that the allies had ... hypothetically.. say the Soviet Union had sided with Germany... and they were able to fill a similar role to what the US did with the allies.. (yes I know they were not in the best of shape but if German know how had been linked to Soviet know how & manpower.... Hmmmm ) the war would have turned out differently...

I also have no doubt at all that if either germany or Japan had gotten this technology before we did they would have not hesitated to use it.. and they would have been more likely to use it on the US since we were so far away....

The debate over the morality of dropping the bomb is silly. It happened. It can be undone. As for that video... the music and some of the responses were more disturbing than the video.


Originally posted by RAF_OldBuzzard:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:...Had the nuking of the innocent been put to a referrendum, the vast majority of American people would have voted against it. This was the main reason for the secrecy.

You have GOT to be kidding. Not only would they have voted to drop the Nuke, they would have voted to carpet bomb Japan with nukes if possible. You are woefully ignorant of the thinking and social climate of the time.

The reason for the secrecy was simple. If the other side would have gotten Nukes first, they would have used them first.

You have the same problem that so many have. You can't put aside your own idealism, and see the world thru the eyes of others. The times were different. The thinking then was "The only good Jap is a dead Jap".

I know that a lot of it is "but it was innocent women and children". That's true, but what about the "women and children" in London, or Nanking? You have to remember, in war, the aggressor sets the rules. The axis gave us London, Coventry, and Nanking...we gave them Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

WWII wasn't Olympic Boxing with 3 rounds, head pads, and rules. It was a bar fight. No holds barred, winner is the last man standing.

If you can't understand that, then you won't understand history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree... not only that you cannot second guess the powers that be 60+ years after the fact. The world in 1945 was not the same as it is today.... peope are the same.. but the world was a different place and if you think that for one second... even if the people had known- which of course they didn't... no one knew... except those that were on a need to know basis - the American public would have opted to not nuke Japan after Pearl, Iwo, all the other well publicized and well propagandized (Not that much "propaganda" was needed.. it was BRUTAL fighting across the board).. then you are dreaming.

Pirschjaeger
03-25-2008, 02:32 AM
Hi BC,

actually, we are saying the same thing, that if the people had known (referendums tend to offer a lot of info) they wouldn't have done it.

What bothers me is the way people can make excuses . I don't blame Americans for dropping the bomb. I blame those responsible, many of whom just happen to be American.

In the end, if we can justify it once, we can justify it again. Many would like to label me as an idealist but in my ideology it is cowardice to knowingly target women and children. If that makes me an idealist, then I'm quite comfortable with that.

Fritz

I_KG100_Prien
03-25-2008, 04:39 AM
Of course what I said was silly Bearcat. It was largely meant to be. Sometimes my yee-haw American Patriot comes out. Sometimes some of the pacifistic idealists who think hugs and kisses solve everything get me riled up. Chamberlain is a marvelous example of why people like that need not be in charge. Some may argue guys like G.W.B need not be in charge. I'll dare not say he's been the best President we've had, because I'd be a liar. I don't agree with everything he's done, or how he's done them. But I will say one thing.. He made a decision. He stuck to it, and he hasn't backed down.

However, crass as my statement was- there was some truth behind it. We set out to win. I know we won because of our infrastructure staying in tact. Unhindered mass production is a great way to win a war. But we also won because we went all out in fighting. It wasn't just about the production and anyone who thinks otherwise, needs to wake up. The Allied forces pulled no punches, because thats how you win a fight.

It wasn't swords at dawn- It was a bar brawl.

I've been a student of World War Two since I was a kid. When other kids in my third grade class were drawing F-14's- I was drawing P-51's, 109's and He-111's. To every other kid in my class 01 Sep 1939 didn't mean a thing. To me, it was the start of a historical love affair. I make no claims at being an expert at it- But I do think there was a lot to learn from, and some things we have yet to do so- Even today.

Airmail109
03-25-2008, 04:56 AM
Originally posted by DuxCorvan:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jadger:
that's a pretty gay song, pardon the pun. Who seriously likes that 80s techno **** anymore?

Not my cup of tea, but still prefer that 80s techno **** to the 70s metal **** that is so praised around here. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

weirdo

Airmail109
03-25-2008, 05:07 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi BC,

actually, we are saying the same thing, that if the people had known (referendums tend to offer a lot of info) they wouldn't have done it.

What bothers me is the way people can make excuses . I don't blame Americans for dropping the bomb. I blame those responsible, many of whom just happen to be American.

In the end, if we can justify it once, we can justify it again. Many would like to label me as an idealist but in my ideology it is cowardice to knowingly target women and children. If that makes me an idealist, then I'm quite comfortable with that.

Fritz

I've never known what to make of the Atom bomb incident. On one hand I think its awful, and yet on the other hand the Japanese populace were a lot more militarized and die hard than the German populace at the time. They needed some sense kicking into them.

Still I don't know enough about it really to comment.

DKoor
03-25-2008, 05:21 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
I agree... not only that you cannot second guess the powers that be 60+ years after the fact. The world in 1945 was not the same as it is today.... people are the same.. but the world was a different place and if you think that for one second... even if the people had known - which of course they didn't... no one knew... except those that were on a need to know basis - the American public would have opted to not nuke Japan after Pearl, Iwo, all the other well publicized and well propagandized (Not that much "propaganda" was needed.. it was BRUTAL fighting across the board).. then you are dreaming. Agree 100%

Vast majority of people would probably opt to nuke TODAY if such grim necessity arise, let alone in those days. Saying otherwise means living in the dreamland. We can just hope such necessity will never come.

310th Falcon
03-25-2008, 07:34 AM
I don't blame Americans for dropping the bomb. I blame those responsible, many of whom just happen to be American.

Blaming?? You are blaming the US!

Of course the Japanese never killed any innocence men, women, and children...right? Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, and other countries they had conquered or occupied.

During Japanese-American internment, about 67,000 Korean and Chinese slave laborers died because of Japanese mistreatment. Of the estimated 26,000 American prisoners held by the Japanese about 10,000 died or were executed by them. Those imprisoned in Japan were treated as slave laborers and many died under the harsh treatment.

Kamikazes...It is estimated that more than 1,800 individual suicide missions were flown by Japanese navy and army pilots during the period from April to June 1945. Reports indicate that they sank 28 ships, damaged 176 and killed more than 5,000 servicemen.

If the invasion of Japan was launched, the U.S. government was faced with the prospect of very heavy losses (estimates ranged from 100,000 to 500,000 men). No government would be able to justify such losses to the American people if it became known that it had another option.

The bomb was the other option, and it was therefore dropped."

If the Empire of Japan hadn't declared war on us and attack Pearl Harbor none of this would have happen period.

Want to blame someone...then blame the Government of Japan!

I forget the name of the Japanese Ace/person that was interview years back...He mention if they would of had the Atomic Bomb they would have use it on us!!


Best Regards

Bewolf
03-25-2008, 08:43 AM
Originally posted by 310th Falcon:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't blame Americans for dropping the bomb. I blame those responsible, many of whom just happen to be American.

Blaming?? You are blaming the US!

Of course the Japanese never killed any innocence men, women, and children...right? Ask the Koreans, the Chinese, and other countries they had conquered or occupied.

During Japanese-American internment, about 67,000 Korean and Chinese slave laborers died because of Japanese mistreatment. Of the estimated 26,000 American prisoners held by the Japanese about 10,000 died or were executed by them. Those imprisoned in Japan were treated as slave laborers and many died under the harsh treatment.

Kamikazes...It is estimated that more than 1,800 individual suicide missions were flown by Japanese navy and army pilots during the period from April to June 1945. Reports indicate that they sank 28 ships, damaged 176 and killed more than 5,000 servicemen.

If the invasion of Japan was launched, the U.S. government was faced with the prospect of very heavy losses (estimates ranged from 100,000 to 500,000 men). No government would be able to justify such losses to the American people if it became known that it had another option.

The bomb was the other option, and it was therefore dropped."

If the Empire of Japan hadn't declared war on us and attack Pearl Harbor none of this would have happen period.

Want to blame someone...then blame the Government of Japan!

I forget the name of the Japanese Ace/person that was interview years back...He mention if they would of had the Atomic Bomb they would have use it on us!!

Best Regards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I am really glad all the US posters in this topic won't ever critizise the Axis for its "total war" philosophy anymore. Luckily the US and it's ppl nowadays legitimize this war concept.
Good, the finger pointing really got onto my nerves lately. And there I thought Coventry, Warsaw and Amsterdam were regarded as unjust atrocities. Finally that was brought into perspective.

Outlaw---
03-25-2008, 10:07 AM
If another country, with the support of it's people (whether willing or not), engages in and forces me into a large scale war, I will not hesitate to kill every man, woman, and child of that country if I believe it will hasten the end of the war. Furthermore, I fully expect them to do the same.

It is hugely and immorally hypocritical to state that a civilian's life is more important than a soldier's. Soldiers are civilians in uniform. In protracted, large scale, and drawn out wars children are future soldiers and women/the old are machinists, welders, plant operators, bakers, tailors, etc. THEY ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE WAR. If you want specific instances germane to this topic, do a little bit of research on the thousands of small shops in Japan producing war material.

I'd like to see some of the posters in this thread stand in front of a million fighting men and explain how 1/3 have to die, 1/4 of the remaining will have permanent disabilities, and 1/2 of the rest will be wounded because you don't want to do anything mean to the enemy.

It's easy to sit in front of a computer in judgement while reading facts out of a book. Try placing yourself as a draftee in a muddy foxhole, sick with dysentery (and sitting in a puddle of the results), having just beaten back the third attack wave. Fortunately the malaria has taken a break for the last few hours so you can at least hold a weapon. Your only 3 friends in the world are dead next to you and you're down to 28 rounds for you M1. In the distance you can hear the enemy forming for the next attack. You've just got word that the 60mm mortar crews are completely out of everything (not even smoke rounds are left) and all of the four-deuces have been hit by artillery. The enemy is too close to you for naval support and all of the 105s were knocked out before they hit the beach. The bazooka and flame thrower teams are all dead and the officers all the way up to the Colonel have moved up to the front with their M1 carbines. The last time a Corsair flew over it dropped napalm on friendlies who had just taken a position back from the enemy.

Now imagine an official stepping up and asking if you would like vote to end the war tomorrow with a nuke or go on slogging it out for 6 more months. How would you vote? How would you want your mother/father/brother/sister/neighbor/etc. to vote? How would you EXPECT them to vote if they knew your situation.

Now imagine if you/they had been asked that question 4 WEEKS AGO.

[edit]
Unjustified insulting comment removed and apology offered.
[end edit]

--Outlaw.

WN_Barbarossa
03-25-2008, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
If another country, with the support of it's people (whether willing or not), engages in and forces me into a large scale war, I will not hesitate to kill every man, woman, and child of that country if I believe it will hasten the end of the war. Furthermore, I fully expect them to do the same.

Totaler Völkermord? Since when is the purpose of war to kill all humans on the other side?



Soldiers are civilians in uniform. In protracted, large scale, and drawn out wars children are future soldiers and women/the old are machinists, welders, plant operators, bakers, tailors, etc. THEY ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE WAR.

Sure. You must have cheered those jets plunging into WTC. After all those people contributed to the American economy thus they were directly responsible for the opression of muslim lands.



I'd like to see some of the posters in this thread stand in front of a million fighting men and explain how 1/3 have to die, 1/4 of the remaining will have permanent disabilities, and 1/2 of the rest will be wounded because you don't want to do anything mean to the enemy.

It's easy. Just lie to them.
Or "Wollt ihr den totale Krieg?"



Now imagine an official stepping up and asking if you would like vote to end the war tomorrow with a nuke or go on slogging it out for 6 more months. How would you vote? How would you want your mother/father/brother/sister/neighbor/etc. to vote? How would you EXPECT them to vote if they knew your situation.

Now that's why civvies and other common people should never ever ever decide about war and peace. The state is the most important, soldiers can be sacrificed.

Bewolf
03-25-2008, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
If another country, with the support of it's people (whether willing or not), engages in and forces me into a large scale war, I will not hesitate to kill every man, woman, and child of that country if I believe it will hasten the end of the war. Furthermore, I fully expect them to do the same.

--Outlaw.

Wow. I've heared a lot of arguments justifying killing of civilians. But potential full scale genocide just to shorten a war is a new one.

I suppose americans still see the world as "them", instead of human beeings.

Thanks outlaw. I will safe your entry for future reference when it comes to discussions with americans about ethics and war guilt.

DD_doubletap
03-25-2008, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
I am really glad all the US posters in this topic won't ever critizise the Axis for its "total war" philosophy anymore.

Depends on what you mean by Total War.

If you mean antagonist's bombing each other's cities to rubble, thus killing civilians as well as industry, then yes, both engaged in Total War.

If you mean rounding up people who are no conceivable threat to a nation, AND exterminating them en masse in the tens of millions because of their race and/or religion as PART OF THAT NATION'S OVERALL WAR AIMS, then yeah, sorry, there are still plenty of Americans (and hopefully Brits, and Aussies, and Chinese, and Koreans, and Poles, etc) who will criticize that and point fingers. I am one of them.

There IS a difference between killing civilians via bombing as part of war effort to defeat an enemy, and making the killing of civilians as part of your overall strategic goals.

Some people referred to German and Japanese aims as merely trying to expand their sphere of influence. Unfortunately, that "influence" meant eliminating millions of people who were in the way in directed campaigns of extermination.

There IS a difference between starting a war, and fighting to defend yourself from one.

The French and the British did their damndest to negotiate with Germany to avoid war, and all it did was buy the Axis more time to arm and plan. What they got for their efforts were more demands.

The US did not attack Japan; Japan attacked the United States, killing nearly 3,000 people on our territory. So much for the theory that Japan posed no direct threat.

The United States did not declare war on Germany; Germany declared war on the United States.

It amazing how this same attempt to equalize conduct and culpability between the WWII antagonists is ever in flux here.

No one is saying the Western Allies had no blood on their hands, but this "we were all equally guilty" nonsense is not backed up logic, the facts or common sense.

Sorry if this hurts anyone's pride or feelings, but don't blame some of us when we refuse to color history to ease your pain.

Doubletap

DD_doubletap
03-25-2008, 11:31 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Outlaw---:
If another country, with the support of it's people (whether willing or not), engages in and forces me into a large scale war, I will not hesitate to kill every man, woman, and child of that country if I believe it will hasten the end of the war. Furthermore, I fully expect them to do the same.

--Outlaw.

Wow. I've heared a lot of arguments justifying killing of civilians. But potential full scale genocide just to shorten a war is a new one.

I suppose americans still see the world as "them", instead of human beeings.

Thanks outlaw. I will safe your entry for future reference when it comes to discussions with americans about ethics and war guilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, Outlaw, I can't agree with that. I would treat each threat with an appropriate response.

If I can win that war while minimizing casualties, I will do it. If, as you say, the people don't even support the enemy government, it seems logical then to target and kill the leadership. Not only is it counter-productive to do otherwise, but that would be morally wrong.

Of course, that will likely involve the killing of at least some civilians due to collateral damage. Of course, we then would not get credit for trying to limit the damage and death, but get lambasted for the few civilian casualties that do occur.

Now, in the case of a nation that posed an existential threat to my nation, all bets are off.

Let me ask you directly, Bewolf.

Nation X explodes several nuclear devices in several of your cities, whether delivered by missle or terrorist operation. Millions are dead, your country is critically wounded, and the nation responsible seems intent on doing it again.

What response do you view as appropriate to such events?

Doubletap

Outlaw---
03-25-2008, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
Wow. I've heared a lot of arguments justifying killing of civilians. But potential full scale genocide just to shorten a war is a new one.


You should know the definition of genocide before throwing it around ignorantly.

The goal I presented is to end the war, not rid the world of a group of people. There is a difference. Nowhere did I state that any killing would continue beyond the end of the war. Genocide, by definition, has no end aside from the total elimination of the target group.

In the situation I presented, the guilty party is the one who forced me into making the decision. The blood of their civilians is on THEIR hands, not mine.


Originally posted by Bewolf:
I suppose americans still see the world as "them", instead of human beeings.


Why do you classify all Americans as having my view? That's as stupid as calling all Germans Nazi's or all Chinese communists.



Originally posted by Bewolf:
Thanks outlaw. I will safe your entry for future reference when it comes to discussions with americans about ethics and war guilt.


Once again, pure stupidity.

--Outlaw.

Bewolf
03-25-2008, 11:55 AM
Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Outlaw---:
If another country, with the support of it's people (whether willing or not), engages in and forces me into a large scale war, I will not hesitate to kill every man, woman, and child of that country if I believe it will hasten the end of the war. Furthermore, I fully expect them to do the same.

--Outlaw.

Wow. I've heared a lot of arguments justifying killing of civilians. But potential full scale genocide just to shorten a war is a new one.

I suppose americans still see the world as "them", instead of human beeings.

Thanks outlaw. I will safe your entry for future reference when it comes to discussions with americans about ethics and war guilt. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry, Outlaw, I can't agree with that. I would treat each threat with an appropriate response.

If I can win that war while minimizing casualties, I will do it. If, as you say, the people don't even support the enemy government, it seems logical then to target and kill the leadership. Not only is it counter-productive to do otherwise, but that would be morally wrong.

Of course, that will likely involve the killing of at least some civilians due to collateral damage. Of course, we then would not get credit for trying to limit the damage and death, but get lambasted for the few civilian casualties that do occur.

Now, in the case of a nation that posed an existential threat to my nation, all bets are off.

Let me ask you directly, Bewolf.

Nation X explodes several nuclear devices in several of your cities, whether delivered by missle or terrorist operation. Millions are dead, your country is critically wounded, and the nation responsible seems intent on doing it again.

What response do you view as appropriate to such events?

Doubletap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thanks for answering, Double. First of all let me tell you my posts were intentional provocative. I do not really think americans are all potential mass murderers, though it sometimes takes a bit to make some individuals actually "think".I also think that during these times, under these circumstances, the bombing was "ok" by the ppl living back then. Especially, in case of that A-bomb, ppl were not aware of the terrible long term consequences.

But, what fundamentally disturbs me is the modern days outlook on what happend. It appears nothing has changed from 60 years ago. As if the US learned nothing from it. Quite on the opposite, actually. This may sound cruel, but sometimes I wished the US got carpet bombed themselves during WW2. I have the feeling ppl there actually have zero idea what "war" really means to those directly involved. That it is not glorious warfare with lots of hero potential, but cruel, bloody and dirty and usually carried out on the backs of the civilian population. 911 would not have been worth more then a sidenote in a "real" war. Still the US acted like it was the end of the world.
Remember the mourning and crying for the victims. This was real human suffering.
But when it comes to ppl outside the US, there is no sensitivity whatsoever when it comes to victims. It's all summed up in a nice sounding term called "colatoral damage". That these ppl could suffer and mourn the very same way does not seem to reach the US mind. Dehumanisation as it'sbest. The enemy is percieved as a grey dull mass that must be destroyed. That these ppl are individuals just as well, with their own families, outlooks on life, dreams and political stances does not appear to come to mind.

DD_doubletap
03-25-2008, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
911 would not have been worth more then a sidenote in a "real" war. Still the US acted like it was the end of the world. There is no sensitivity whatsoever when it comes to victims. It's all summed up in a nice sounding term called "colatoral damage".

Bewolf,

In a way, 9/11 IS a sidenote in a "real" war. I meant that in no way as a diminishment of 9/11 (and yes, Americans DO rile at diminishing that event).

What you don't get of America's response or outlook is that we do think we are in real war, and that 9/11 was just one shot in a larger one. The attacks in London, Madrid, Bali, Turkey, Israel, Iraq, Jordan, etc, are part of a wider conflict.

What you view as overeaction on our part is to us a pro-active attempt to prevent a major larger, more dangerous conflict. Yes, one that COULD be the end of the world.

We may be wrong about that (I don't think so, and would be willing to discuss it), but accusations that the US is doing what we are doing out of "cowboy simplicity" or "simple bloodlust" or whatever is to completely misread and underestimate us.

Tony Blair said it best. Had the Jihadists been able to kill 30,000 or 300,000 one 9/11, so much more would have been their joy.

When you wed that kind of REAL depraved bloodlust with the proliferation of nuclear and biological weapons, the end of the world is not longer a matter for asteroids or science fiction.

And please, there is no sensitivity to victims? DOes that REALLY sound like the United States, who leads the world in targeted munitions, that runs many strike orders up the chain of command and who pays for medical care and compensation for civilians? Really?

What boils a Yanks blood is stating that WE have no sensitivity to victims while the guys we are fighting make the slaughter of civilians their major tactical and strategic aims.

I would like nothing better to bring all our soldiers home and not lose a single one anyone where in the world ever again. When someone can convince the hijackers and headchoppers to do the same, let me know.

Doubletap

Outlaw---
03-25-2008, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
Sure. You must have cheered those jets plunging into WTC. After all those people contributed to the American economy thus they were directly responsible for the opression of muslim lands.

What part of, "...engages in and forces me into a large scale war...", was your brain unable to comprehend? Please explain how any reasonably intelligent human being could reason that ANYTHING I said could possibly apply to ANY conflict since WW-II.



Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
It's easy. Just lie to them.
Or "Wollt ihr den totale Krieg?"


No thanks, I prefer to face things like a man, not a lying coward.



Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
Now that's why civvies and other common people should never ever ever decide about war and peace. The state is the most important, soldiers can be sacrificed.


Not MY soldiers.

--Outlaw.

Outlaw---
03-25-2008, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
Now, in the case of a nation that posed an existential threat to my nation, all bets are off.


If you include sworn allies, and I do, the above is the scenario my post was directed towards.

--Outlaw.

Outlaw---
03-25-2008, 12:30 PM
So far the only response I've gotten to the following...

I'd like to see some of the posters in this thread stand in front of a million fighting men and explain how 1/3 have to die, 1/4 of the remaining will have permanent disabilities, and 1/2 of the rest will be wounded because you don't want to do anything mean to the enemy.


Is lie to them and send them off to die. I will make the assumption that Barbarossa is not an American and conclude that all non-Americans feel that their soldiers are nothing more than cannon fodder to be slaughtered at their whim. I sure am glad I not one of their soldiers, sworn to protect people who feel I am expendable.

--Outlaw.

I_KG100_Prien
03-25-2008, 01:15 PM
The enemy is percieved as a grey dull mass that must be destroyed.

This is correct. The enemy also looks at us as a grey dull mass that bust be destroyed. Hence the term enemy and not ally. "Oops, better not shoot this guy -who is trying to kill me- because he might have a wife"... Sure. Take that route. I'm sure your family will enjoy the folded flag. Thats for the other guys family...

This is not strictly from "our side". This is for both sides. Fighting is about survival, not holding hands and singing 'round the camp fire.


This is where the breakdown happens. People can't understand that there is no such thing as a fair fight. You do what you must to win. The first time you turn your back on the enemy, they'll cut your throat. It's not about taking pleasure in the destruction, but doing it out of necessity.

My unit was going through a certification exercise. One of the scenarios that was thrown at us went like this..

An irate woman comes running up to our checkpoint crying "Help! Help! My husband!! He is going to kill me! I'm pregnant! Please... please.. HELP ME!!!!"

Sure enough a man comes walking up with a pistol in hand. He starts screaming at her and calling he names, accusations of infidelity fly. He then raises his pistol, and "kills her".

There were two ways to handle that. It was a test to see if we could follow our "Rules of Engagement". Which, stated for the exercise that we were not allowed to interfere with anything outside of our perimeter- unless directly threatened. So one, follow ROE or two, blast the guy.

So- because we wanted to "Pass" our evaluation and get back to real food and showers (this was on the last night of a 5 day campout)... We let the man blast the woman, and walk away. So there is this "corpse" that we have to deal with.. I.e call for local authority to come clean it up. Whatever..

What happened after that.. well.. We were asked by the evaluators how WE thought we did.. I piped up and said "We should have wasted that motherf*cker.. How, can we as Military Policeman, and decent people allow something like that to unfold right in front of us. I feel it is our duty to defend everyone, and what just happened was wrong".

I got looked at and told "Well you would be in violation of your ROE, and would be brought up on charges for an unjustified use of force".

My response "Look, I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6. I could and would not allow an innocent civilian to be murdered in front of me. Wouldn't happen. Besides, who's to say after he shot the woman that he wouldn't turn his gun on us? I'm not taking any chances with my life, my fellow sailors lives, or any one else's. There is no time to second guess."

There was a lot more to the conversation than that but I'll spare you the rest.

The point is we've become so concerned about Political Correctness and opinions of the outside that we are constantly on the defensive. We have to second guess everything we do, and second guessing gets people killed. The bad guy will see this as a sign of weakness and use it against you- and they have

Insurgents coming towards troops under the "white flag" and then opening fire, or exploding.

Insurgents "playing dead or wounded" and then triggering explosions. Fighting dirty. Then, when there is video footage of a young Marine killing an "apparently helpless" insurgent, (he was taking no chances, given previous circumstances)- The "PC" world wanted to see him hung. I mean, who was he to kill an enemy combatant. Oh, before anyone spews that "Prisoner" garbage.. A prisoner isn't a prisoner until they no longer have the ability to fight and are properly secured. Again, you need to look at the prior circumstances.. Bad guys were faking, and attacking at a point of weakness. That Marine did what he had to do, which was fight fire with fire.

Guess not many people have seen the video of Insurgents burning and beating the dead bodies of Solders they had captured. Trust me.. They show us no mercy.

But we should be nice to them!

Pirschjaeger
03-25-2008, 01:39 PM
I've been sort of watching this thread but stopped posting due to my words having been twisted. The topic was given a little spin and was becoming very confusing. I decided to sit back, watch, and try to think objectively.

But what I can see is matter vs anti-matter.

There are two different ideologies at work here. One tries to over-simplify in order to justify. Often, it's reaching. For example, going from justifying targeting women and children to justifying killing insugents as the same argument.

The other has been subjected to years of scrutiny both externally and internally. Germans have been asking and contemplating these issues for years. Unless you are German, you cannot understand.

What do I see? Two extremes. No extreme is ever right.

There comes a point when the discussion isn't valid anymore as it spirals into a pi$$ing match; something that benefits no one.

Think about it.

Fritz

joeap
03-25-2008, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:

What do I see? Two extremes. No extreme is ever right.

There comes a point when the discussion isn't valid anymore as it spirals into a pi$$ing match; something that benefits no one.

Think about it.

Fritz

+1 I've been in real life arguments like that and it's not fun. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-sad.gif

DD_doubletap
03-25-2008, 02:53 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
There are two different ideologies at work here. One tries to over-simplify in order to justify. Often, it's reaching. For example, going from justifying targeting women and children to justifying killing insugents as the same argument.
Fritz

Fritz,

I am not sure what you mean here, so its hard for me to think about it clearly as you ask.

You are saying the killing of women and children and the killing of insurgents IS the same thing, or people are trying to equate insurgents with women and children to justify killing both?

Doubletap

Pirschjaeger
03-25-2008, 03:01 PM
Neither.

DD_doubletap
03-25-2008, 03:33 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Neither.

Well, that was helpful.

Nice talking to you.

Doubletap

I_KG100_Prien
03-25-2008, 03:36 PM
On second thought..

310th Falcon
03-25-2008, 04:18 PM
Bewolf wrote:

This may sound cruel, but sometimes I wished the US got carpet bombed themselves during WW2.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-mad.gif Really Bewolf??

Good to know how you really feel about America!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif


Best Regards

BoCfuss
03-25-2008, 06:54 PM
The problem Pirschjaeger is one group is saying that something is morally wrong during war. That just doesn't make any sense at all. War is killing, it doesn't matter if its women, men, soldiers, kids, goats, dogs, trees. War is obtaining an end by any means possible. Don't start a war if you don't expect bad things to happen to you and yours.

Bewolf? Seriously, that is disturbing to me.

R_Target
03-25-2008, 08:13 PM
Originally posted by 310th Falcon:
Good to know how you really feel about America!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif

Sometimes the real hatred peeks out from behind the sanctimonious mask.

Bearcat99
03-25-2008, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi BC,
actually, we are saying the same thing, that if the people had known (referendums tend to offer a lot of info) they wouldn't have done it.

What bothers me is the way people can make excuses . I don't blame Americans for dropping the bomb. I blame those responsible, many of whom just happen to be American.

In the end, if we can justify it once, we can justify it again. Many would like to label me as an idealist but in my ideology it is cowardice to knowingly target women and children. If that makes me an idealist, then I'm quite comfortable with that.
Fritz

I agree with that for the most part... That is one of the issues I have with some of these Islamic organizations, who while they do have very real grievances, they loose me when they strt to bomb shopping malls and school.. and mosques etc.. but in WWII it was different.. there was no place where there were just Japanese soldiers... they would have had to bomb US soldiers as well.. and I just feel that we cannot second guess the administration of the time. I used to feel the same way you did... I do feel that perhaps they could have waited on the second one... but say they dropped the first bomb offshore... do you think that would have made the Japanese surrender? I do not. Wars are best left unfought IMO....


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Sometimes some of the pacifistic idealists who think hugs and kisses solve everything get me riled up. Chamberlain is a marvelous example of why people like that need not be in charge. Some may argue guys like G.W.B need not be in charge. I'll dare not say he's been the best President we've had, because I'd be a liar. I don't agree with everything he's done, or how he's done them. But I will say one thing.. He made a decision. He stuck to it, and he hasn't backed down.
However, crass as my statement was- there was some truth behind it. We set out to win. I know we won because of our infrastructure staying in tact. Unhindered mass production is a great way to win a war. But we also won because we went all out in fighting. It wasn't just about the production and anyone who thinks otherwise, needs to wake up. The Allied forces pulled no punches, because thats how you win a fight.
It wasn't swords at dawn- It was a bar brawl.


Yes it was a brawl.. as for our current president... my issue with him and this war was that the administration had so much, so so much evidence contradicting the "party line" that they willfully and IMO criminally chose to ignore and even supress. It wasn't like they were surprised.... they had to manufacture public consent in a big way and to this day they still perpetuate the lie... war on terror... war against Al Qaida... Al Quaida wasn't in Iraq until WE called them in with our invasion. If anything they were vehemently opposed to Sadaam... Not only that if they had listened to Colin Powell and others.. because there were several they would either not have gone in or gone in better prepared. There was no exit strategy... Cheny & Rumsfeld were playing fast and loose and they screwed up. We had more military leaders going through Iraq than we did in WWII..


Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
I am really glad all the US posters in this topic won't ever critizise the Axis for its "total war" philosophy anymore.

Depends on what you mean by Total War.

If you mean antagonist's bombing each other's cities to rubble, thus killing civilians as well as industry, then yes, both engaged in Total War.

If you mean rounding up people who are no conceivable threat to a nation, AND exterminating them en masse in the tens of millions because of their race and/or religion as PART OF THAT NATION'S OVERALL WAR AIMS, then yeah, sorry, there are still plenty of Americans (and hopefully Brits, and Aussies, and Chinese, and Koreans, and Poles, etc) who will criticize that and point fingers. I am one of them.

There IS a difference between killing civilians via bombing as part of war effort to defeat an enemy, and making the killing of civilians as part of your overall strategic goals.

Some people referred to German and Japanese aims as merely trying to expand their sphere of influence. Unfortunately, that "influence" meant eliminating millions of people who were in the way in directed campaigns of extermination.
Doubletap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely.... agree 100% and that is why you cannot compare the bombing of Hiroshima with some of the stuff done by the Germans Japanese soldiers during the war. I don't recall hearing of anything on that scale done by the U.S. in WWII...


Originally posted by Bewolf:
But, what fundamentally disturbs me is the modern days outlook on what happend. It appears nothing has changed from 60 years ago. As if the US learned nothing from it. Quite on the opposite, actually. This may sound cruel, but sometimes I wished the US got carpet bombed themselves during WW2. I have the feeling ppl there actually have zero idea what "war" really means to those directly involved. That it is not glorious warfare with lots of hero potential, but cruel, bloody and dirty and usually carried out on the backs of the civilian population. 911 would not have been worth more then a sidenote in a "real" war. Still the US acted like it was the end of the world.
Remember the mourning and crying for the victims. This was real human suffering.
But when it comes to ppl outside the US, there is no sensitivity whatsoever when it comes to victims. It's all summed up in a nice sounding term called "colatoral damage". That these ppl could suffer and mourn the very same way does not seem to reach the US mind. Dehumanisation as it'sbest. The enemy is percieved as a grey dull mass that must be destroyed. That these ppl are individuals just as well, with their own families, outlooks on life, dreams and political stances does not appear to come to mind.

Well that shows that you know absolutely nothing about Americans or that what you do know could be written on a stamp. For your information.... there have been protests in this country about Iraq since the first Gulf war.. since the bombing never really stopped... which is why Sadaam was no real threat... and don't get me started on the effects of the depleted uranium from the 1st war. I was at the Udvar Hazey Air & Space Museum here in Virginia on opening day. Still.... 60 years after the fact there were protestors there.. and one even threw red paint on The Enola Gay.. which is on display in the museum so dont talk to me about how the American people about casualties outside the U.S. Now or then. Don't take press releases as the feelings of the American people, which is what you seem to be doing. As for your 9/11 comment .... We will see how your country acts if GOD forbid you have a terrorist attack in the next few years that kills thousands.. and leaves thousands more devastated.. until then you need to just shut up about 9/11 because you are talking out the side of your neck about it.

AS for the original topic... like I said.... it is history... and none of us have the right to second guess any of it to the point of passing any kind of judgement on it that has any meaningful value... other than to toot our own horns and hear our own voices. It is history.

Bewolf
03-26-2008, 03:19 AM
Originally posted by Bearcat99:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Hi BC,
actually, we are saying the same thing, that if the people had known (referendums tend to offer a lot of info) they wouldn't have done it.

What bothers me is the way people can make excuses . I don't blame Americans for dropping the bomb. I blame those responsible, many of whom just happen to be American.

In the end, if we can justify it once, we can justify it again. Many would like to label me as an idealist but in my ideology it is cowardice to knowingly target women and children. If that makes me an idealist, then I'm quite comfortable with that.
Fritz

I agree with that for the most part... That is one of the issues I have with some of these Islamic organizations, who while they do have very real grievances, they loose me when they strt to bomb shopping malls and school.. and mosques etc.. but in WWII it was different.. there was no place where there were just Japanese soldiers... they would have had to bomb US soldiers as well.. and I just feel that we cannot second guess the administration of the time. I used to feel the same way you did... I do feel that perhaps they could have waited on the second one... but say they dropped the first bomb offshore... do you think that would have made the Japanese surrender? I do not. Wars are best left unfought IMO....


Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:
Sometimes some of the pacifistic idealists who think hugs and kisses solve everything get me riled up. Chamberlain is a marvelous example of why people like that need not be in charge. Some may argue guys like G.W.B need not be in charge. I'll dare not say he's been the best President we've had, because I'd be a liar. I don't agree with everything he's done, or how he's done them. But I will say one thing.. He made a decision. He stuck to it, and he hasn't backed down.
However, crass as my statement was- there was some truth behind it. We set out to win. I know we won because of our infrastructure staying in tact. Unhindered mass production is a great way to win a war. But we also won because we went all out in fighting. It wasn't just about the production and anyone who thinks otherwise, needs to wake up. The Allied forces pulled no punches, because thats how you win a fight.
It wasn't swords at dawn- It was a bar brawl.


Yes it was a brawl.. as for our current president... my issue with him and this war was that the administration had so much, so so much evidence contradicting the "party line" that they willfully and IMO criminally chose to ignore and even supress. It wasn't like they were surprised.... they had to manufacture public consent in a big way and to this day they still perpetuate the lie... war on terror... war against Al Qaida... Al Quaida wasn't in Iraq until WE called them in with our invasion. If anything they were vehemently opposed to Sadaam... Not only that if they had listened to Colin Powell and others.. because there were several they would either not have gone in or gone in better prepared. There was no exit strategy... Cheny & Rumsfeld were playing fast and loose and they screwed up. We had more military leaders going through Iraq than we did in WWII..


Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
I am really glad all the US posters in this topic won't ever critizise the Axis for its "total war" philosophy anymore.

Depends on what you mean by Total War.

If you mean antagonist's bombing each other's cities to rubble, thus killing civilians as well as industry, then yes, both engaged in Total War.

If you mean rounding up people who are no conceivable threat to a nation, AND exterminating them en masse in the tens of millions because of their race and/or religion as PART OF THAT NATION'S OVERALL WAR AIMS, then yeah, sorry, there are still plenty of Americans (and hopefully Brits, and Aussies, and Chinese, and Koreans, and Poles, etc) who will criticize that and point fingers. I am one of them.

There IS a difference between killing civilians via bombing as part of war effort to defeat an enemy, and making the killing of civilians as part of your overall strategic goals.

Some people referred to German and Japanese aims as merely trying to expand their sphere of influence. Unfortunately, that "influence" meant eliminating millions of people who were in the way in directed campaigns of extermination.
Doubletap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Absolutely.... agree 100% and that is why you cannot compare the bombing of Hiroshima with some of the stuff done by the Germans Japanese soldiers during the war. I don't recall hearing of anything on that scale done by the U.S. in WWII...


Originally posted by Bewolf:
But, what fundamentally disturbs me is the modern days outlook on what happend. It appears nothing has changed from 60 years ago. As if the US learned nothing from it. Quite on the opposite, actually. This may sound cruel, but sometimes I wished the US got carpet bombed themselves during WW2. I have the feeling ppl there actually have zero idea what "war" really means to those directly involved. That it is not glorious warfare with lots of hero potential, but cruel, bloody and dirty and usually carried out on the backs of the civilian population. 911 would not have been worth more then a sidenote in a "real" war. Still the US acted like it was the end of the world.
Remember the mourning and crying for the victims. This was real human suffering.
But when it comes to ppl outside the US, there is no sensitivity whatsoever when it comes to victims. It's all summed up in a nice sounding term called "colatoral damage". That these ppl could suffer and mourn the very same way does not seem to reach the US mind. Dehumanisation as it'sbest. The enemy is percieved as a grey dull mass that must be destroyed. That these ppl are individuals just as well, with their own families, outlooks on life, dreams and political stances does not appear to come to mind.

Well that shows that you know absolutely nothing about Americans or that what you do know could be written on a stamp. For your information.... there have been protests in this country about Iraq since the first Gulf war.. since the bombing never really stopped... which is why Sadaam was no real threat... and don't get me started on the effects of the depleted uranium from the 1st war. I was at the Udvar Hazey Air & Space Museum here in Virginia on opening day. Still.... 60 years after the fact there were protestors there.. and one even threw red paint on The Enola Gay.. which is on display in the museum so dont talk to me about how the American people about casualties outside the U.S. Now or then. Don't take press releases as the feelings of the American people, which is what you seem to be doing. As for your 9/11 comment .... We will see how your country acts if GOD forbid you have a terrorist attack in the next few years that kills thousands.. and leaves thousands more devastated.. until then you need to just shut up about 9/11 because you are talking out the side of your neck about it.

AS for the original topic... like I said.... it is history... and none of us have the right to second guess any of it to the point of passing any kind of judgement on it that has any meaningful value... other than to toot our own horns and hear our own voices. It is history. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Sorry BC. I deal with americans almost on a daily basis, job related. I've been all over the US by now, from Seattle to New York, From San Francisco to Miami. I have a lot of personal friends there as well, not to talk about my girl friend beeing american.
I dare to say I've seen more of the US and talked to more US ppl then 90 percent of the american folks themselves. But contrary to popular believe in the US over here "critique" and "hatred" are not synonymus.

If you read my post, Bearcat, you'll also notice that I already wrote my posts are intentionally provocative. I certainly do not wish the US to be carpet bombed. But once again, this outcry even over the notion of carpet bombing made some ppl here mad, while abroad ppl die happily due to colatoral damage.

Dun see those ppl complain about that. I think that alone shows enough of the americancentrism so obvious to others but americans themselves.

Pirschjaeger
03-26-2008, 03:46 AM
but say they dropped the first bomb offshore... do you think that would have made the Japanese surrender?

Honestly BC, I don't know considering the US had only two bombs. Maybe if they had had more they might have tried something like that first. But that might be wishful thinking on my part.



I do not. Wars are best left unfought IMO....

I like this. I hadn't heard it before. Did you make that one BC?

But I had another thought on the bombing of Japan. Today we are fortunate enough to have hindsight. Do you think, given the same scenario, and having today's knowledge of the effects and after-effects, that people would agree to doing it again?

Personally, I don't think so.

At the time the bombs were dropped, only a handful, compared to the populace, knew about it and many of them were not accurately sure of the effects and they were very unsure of the long-term effects. It's fair to say that the populace had no knowledge in any regard. It was only a few years after the fact that they started to realize just what had happened.

It's also safe to say that the only thing the general populace would have known about the Japanese would have come from dehumanizing propaganda.

Today most people know of the consequences. If people were to repeat history, meaning the scenario, and it was put to vote, I think those who'd vote for the bombing would be a very small group. The vast majority would vote against it.

What do you think?

FRitz

luftluuver
03-26-2008, 04:10 AM
Atomic Bomb: Decision

http://www.dannen.com/decision/index.html

"Documents on the decision to use the atomic bomb are reproduced here in full-text form. In most cases, the originals are in the U.S. National Archives. Other aspects of the decision are shown from accounts by the participants. This page was new May 29, 1995, and it was last updated August 9, 2003."

Pirschjaeger
03-26-2008, 04:20 AM
Thanks Luftluuver. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

No time to look at them now but I'll definiely start reading them later today.

Fritz

DD_doubletap
03-26-2008, 05:15 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
I certainly do not wish the US to be carpet bombed. But once again, this outcry even over the notion of carpet bombing made some ppl here mad,


Bewolf,

While not agreeing with Pirschjaeger on, well, alot of things, I think he is right that these kind of discussions do tend to devolve into "Pis$$ing" matches, and that most easily happens with purposefully imflammatory statements like this.

What SHOULD be the response of Americans to a person from a supposedly friendly, if not Allied nation, saying that carpet bombing might be good for us? Sorry if 9/11 and nearly 3,000 does not count as a real enough attack for some (although Pearl Harbor had similar losses and THAT sent us flying into WWII), but yeah, Americans are still kinda touchy about it. So, fantasies about more dead in our streets will tend to make us cranky. Not sure why that mystifies you or anyone, particularly because we know that there are people plotting now to make that happen. They've made it happen in quite a few european streets as well, nomatter their stance on the war, and they are going to do it again.


Originally posted by Bewolf:
while abroad ppl die happily due to colatoral damage.
Dun see those ppl complain about that.


Whose is dying happily? Certainly not the victims, so I assume you mean Americans are happy over civilians being killed? Is that it?

Really?

I must have missed the pro-slaughter rallies here in the States. You know, where we put plastic babies on spears and dance around a bonfire chanting for "Blood, More BLOOD!"

Except for some yahoos, and there are some in EVERY nation, I don't know any Americans, pro or anti-war, who are happy to have collateral damage. Its ridiculous and insulting and that kind of charicature is why having an honest dialogue, in the States or outside of it, continues to be so difficult.

An no one complains about it? As much as I disagree with anti-war protesters in the States, you are kidding me? We have had massive rallies and demonstrations and WELL-funded organizations here since the invasion of Afghanistan "complaining about it", whether or not they had all their facts straight.


Originally posted by Bewolf:
I think that alone shows enough of the americancentrism so obvious to others but americans themselves.

So we come to the heart of it. Is it really about the war and the civilian casualties, or is it about clubbing the self-righteous Americans over the head with the morality stick now that some feel able to wield it themselves?

I don't know. I am no fool and as much as I love my country (and yes, I love it a whole lot whether that alone bothers some), I do not think we are above reproach or criticism. No human is.

But, it DOES seem that there is an awful lot of concern for civilian casualties when they are, or are supposedly, caused from American action.

When it comes to the enemy we are fighting, the one for whom civilians ARE the target and war aim, the ones who systematically kill people in the millions over time (Saddam) or kill a hundred here and there with a car bomb (insurgents) or murder civilians in the streets for the crime of smoking or refusing to allow their daughters to be raped, well, there seems to be a strange lack of concern.

Saddam was killing civilians for decades. What is the moral culpability for allowing that to happen? Are we somehow more pure for having stood back and let it happen, as long as our hands remained unblemished?

Should the United States and Great Britain said to Hitler, "Okay, you take Europe, with our blessing!" Would that have stopped the murder of civilians, or would it have continued in the camps and in the Russian steppes? Would it have been morally superior to do that?

Pirschjaeger seems to believe that the killing of civilians is never justified under any circumtances, but what if refusing to fight and kill some civilians, even unintentionally, will kill far more?

There are sins of omission and sins of commission. We all know people in Darfur are being slaughtered, still, and the world stands by and does nothing. By inaction, by doing nothing, civilians are being murdered and killed. Are we all morally superior as long as we are uninvolved in it?

Complex isn't it? A little more complex than some make it out to be.

Doubletap

WN_Barbarossa
03-26-2008, 05:23 AM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
Genocide, by definition, has no end aside from the total elimination of the target group.

Sorry to say this, but you're wrong sire!
Genocide by definition:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm



What part of, "...engages in and forces me into a large scale war...", was your brain unable to comprehend?

This part:

Originally posted by Outlaw---:
In protracted, large scale, and drawn out wars children are future soldiers and women/the old are machinists, welders, plant operators, bakers, tailors, etc. THEY ALL CONTRIBUTE TO THE WAR

This is strange, because you said that YOUR soldiers should not and can not be sacrificed during a war, while all the women, children and civilians you mentioned can be nuked leisurely.



No thanks, I prefer to face things like a man, not a lying coward.

You may prefer this, but your leaders think differently, and they "stand in front of a million fighting men and explain":
"Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."



I will make the assumption that Barbarossa is not an American and conclude that all non-Americans feel that their soldiers are nothing more than cannon fodder to be slaughtered at their whim.

LOL, yes, we non-americans are like a big family all around the world. Feel free to visit us sometime in the future.

WN_Barbarossa
03-26-2008, 05:42 AM
Originally posted by I_KG100_Prien:

My unit was going through a certification exercise. One of the scenarios that was thrown at us went like this..

An irate woman comes running up to our checkpoint crying "Help! Help! My husband!! He is going to kill me! I'm pregnant! Please... please.. HELP ME!!!!"

Sure enough a man comes walking up with a pistol in hand. He starts screaming at her and calling he names, accusations of infidelity fly. He then raises his pistol, and "kills her".

There were two ways to handle that. It was a test to see if we could follow our "Rules of Engagement". Which, stated for the exercise that we were not allowed to interfere with anything outside of our perimeter- unless directly threatened. So one, follow ROE or two, blast the guy.

So- because we wanted to "Pass" our evaluation and get back to real food and showers (this was on the last night of a 5 day campout)... We let the man blast the woman, and walk away. So there is this "corpse" that we have to deal with.. I.e call for local authority to come clean it up. Whatever..

Similar situation what the Dutch peacekeepers faced in Srebrenica. I'm just wondering - can't you just say, that the armed man was trying to shoot at you too, so he had to be killed. If the Army Court will have no videotape about the case, how can they prove that you didn't tell the mthe exact truth?



War is killing, it doesn't matter if its women, men, soldiers, kids, goats, dogs, trees. War is obtaining an end by any means possible. Don't start a war if you don't expect bad things to happen to you and yours.

That sound quite reasonable, but my main problem with it is that "women, men, soldiers, kids, goats, dogs, trees" in general don't start wars.

Outlaw---
03-26-2008, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
Sorry to say this, but you're wrong sire!
Genocide by definition:
http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/p_genoci.htm


By that definition the killing of a single person denotes genocide.

I used the American Heritage dictionary definition...
The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group.

You can cherry pick the definition of your choice, however, it's pretty obvious to me that the American Heritage definition captures the true nature of the act and not something specifically designed to make it easy to convict.



Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
This is strange, because you said that YOUR soldiers should not and can not be sacrificed during a war, while all the women, children and civilians you mentioned can be nuked leisurely.

Show me where I said that. Maybe you and raaaid should get together and take some ESL classes.


Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
You may prefer this, but your leaders think differently, and they "stand in front of a million fighting men and explain":
"Liberating Iraq would be a cakewalk."
"I think they're in the last throes, if you will, of the insurgency."
"It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."


WTF did this come from? Even the most uneducated slack-jawed yokel can understand that my post was IN NO WAY WHATSOEVER related to current events, current US policy, or could even be applied to ANY current conflict located anywhere on the planet.



Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
LOL, yes, we non-americans are like a big family all around the world. Feel free to visit us sometime in the future.


It's interesting that you failed to disagree with my remarks. You also failed to comment on my soldier in a foxhole scenario. If you can find the time, feel free to step off that high horse, stay on topic, and answer the questions I proposed.

--Outlaw.

Bremspropeller
03-26-2008, 10:05 AM
Well that shows that you know absolutely nothing about Americans or that what you do know could be written on a stamp.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

I'm not gonna post what at first came to my mind on that... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

I never found it hard to percieve what most Americans are about, when many of them seem to have trouble recognizing what other ppl are about.
It's called self-fixiation and it doesn't help a lot on discussions like the one here.

DD_doubletap
03-26-2008, 10:28 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
It's called self-fixiation and it doesn't help a lot on discussions like the one here.

That's ironic in a way, because many Americans feel others are fixated on us when it comes to finding fault for all the world's ills, or simply just finding fault.

Doubletap

Bremspropeller
03-26-2008, 10:41 AM
That may be b/c no other nation keeps being busy, exporting it's values and thoughts into places of the world that couldn't care less.

It just ticks me off, I can't switch on the news without hearing that Ms. Hilton decided to go partying w/o her panties again.

Srsly, I don't give a sh1t about other people's coice of undies. neither should you.
I just don't wanna hear of "Nipplegate" or some senator being gay.
I don't give a feck.
I don't wanna have "Star Wars" installed right in my neighbourhood.
I don't want our troops to be sent south in Afghanistan just because some other amry screwed up.

I could go on like that for hours.
Some Americans keep on whining "the whole world points on us". Well, have you ever wondered why?
I guess you haven't - but then again, the rest of the world doesn't know sh1t about Americans, right?
Actually, I can't bother "knowing sh1t" about Americans, before Amercians start to know and CARE sh1t about the world. Some seem to do, but unfortunately they're far from being the major share.

Bearcat99
03-26-2008, 01:46 PM
That is a whole nother issue... that is a result of the overall decline in journalism in general.. thats wht you get when much of the media is run by the same people who are stealing the money and screwing everybody... fluff & BS.. distractions to keep our eyes off the real deal..

and BW... if you deal with so many American s with perhaps you are dealing with the wrong ones... I'd say @ 45-65% of the people I know have more issues with this government.. past and present.. and are not shy about voicing them. I also think that every culture is ethnocentric in it's own right.. so why should Americans be expected to be any different? If I came off kinda harsh I apologize... but like so may have said... it seems that the U.S. is everyones favorite whipping boy more often than not around here...

and no Fritz... I didn't make that one up... pardon me fior stating the obvious though... If we could just manage as a species to put as much effort into working together as trying to dominate each other we would all be better off.. I know that right now thats a pipe dream.. but hey.. I can still dream. If the U.S expoerted farming and medical stuff to the same degree as war tools.. Our standard of living might be lower.. but the world would be a better place for sure.

RAF_OldBuzzard
03-26-2008, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by DD_doubletap: ...Let me ask you directly, Bewolf.

Nation X explodes several nuclear devices in several of your cities, whether delivered by missle or terrorist operation. Millions are dead, your country is critically wounded, and the nation responsible seems intent on doing it again.

What response do you view as appropriate to such events?

Doubletap

Since Beowolf didn't want to answer that, I will.

You nuke'em till they glow, and then shoot'em in the dark.

What get's me over this whole debate is that everyone acts like the US has been the agressor. We didn't start WWII. We had to be pushed into it. Once in, we did what we had to do to get it over with as soon as possible, whit as few casualitys as possible.

The anti-Hiroshime/Nagasaki folks drone on and on about 'women & children'. Have any of you given any thought to just how many 'women & children" would have ended up being killed if, instead of droping two nukes, we invaded Japan? The numbers of those precious 'women & children' killed in those two cities woud have been miniscule compared to what would have happened with an invasion. Doubt me? Do a bit of research as to what the civilians did at Okinawa. Can you sit there with a straight face and tell me that it wouldn't have been any different on the home islands?

Whether you like it or not, in the long run, we did the Japanese a favor by using the atom bomb. Yes, each instance was horrible, and that is a good part of why nukes have never been used since. But as bad as it was, the alternative would have been much worse.

joeap
03-26-2008, 03:44 PM
You know guys the following statements are not mutually exclusive:

1) The use of the atom bombs by the USA against Japan was at best unnecessary, at worst a war crime.

2) The USA's involvement in WWII, before and after actually entering hostilities was for a just cause, in both theatres.

I know quite a few Brits who, while they are proud of their stand against Hitler and the 3rd Reich, question the policy of area bombing against German cities. Especially late in the war.

Furthermore, it seems to me in this debate, people forget that the US military also was responsible for at least as many, if not more deaths of German civilians in Europe (albeit without the radiation effects) but kind of "got away with it" because they were fighing alongside the Brits who were bombing at night, and the Soviets who (with former Nazi victims Poland and the Czech repubulic) expelled and casued the death of countless other German civilians.

Now before the fingers point against me, I usually am arguing the Allied side, very often the Soviets which I never used to only, but in order to be honest we have to look at the other side. I basically feel the superpowers on the winning side, the US and USSR, fought justified wars between 1941 and 1944 with some questionable acts (Katyn, the evacuation of Tatars and Chechens, the internment of Japanese-Americans etc.) the worst they did was in 1945 (and not everything was bad then either...the US certainly did the right thing in pouring millions for reconstruction). The same for the Brits, except from 1939...

The former Axis nations though, have been very "well behaved" since 1945. Even if many Japanese perhaps (I am really not 100% certain) not very aware of what their military governemnt of the time did in Asia, I think their desire for peace being the only country to suffer an atomic bomb act is genuine. I can confidently say the same for most Germans. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif Almost too much, I don't think helping UN operations is a bad thing.

BTW as a START for further research the wikipedia article is alright and most importantly has good sources.

Wiki article on A-bombings (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki)

Bremspropeller
03-26-2008, 04:16 PM
Have any of you given any thought to just how many 'women & children" would have ended up being killed if, instead of droping two nukes, we invaded Japan?

As Hirohito wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, your argument is pointless.

I also don't see why being forced into a war justifies intentional murder in huge scale.

Dropping the nukes was nothing but a show of "mine is longer" to the Russkies.

MB_Avro_UK
03-26-2008, 06:09 PM
Hi all,

I'm not taking sides here.

But you MUST take into account the mindset of the allies in WW2. The US and Britain viewed themselves as victims of an unprovoked and a total war.

As regards Japan, the world saw them as an evil and sadistic regime.

It's easy today in our wise armchairs to criticise. But you have to project your present day judgements into the mindset of WW2.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Bewolf
03-26-2008, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I'm not taking sides here.

But you MUST take into account the mindset of the allies in WW2. The US and Britain viewed themselves as victims of an unprovoked and a total war.

As regards Japan, the world saw them as an evil and sadistic regime.

It's easy today in our wise armchairs to criticise. But you have to project your present day judgements into the mindset of WW2.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Sorry for not answering earlier. I will do that tomorrow once I have more time.

Enough to say this is not so much about ppl back then and their descisions in a time of war, it is more about modern day people's outlook on those happenings and their appearant refusal to accept that in "hindsight" the dropping was wrong or at least very very questionable. Back in the 40ies it was different.

WOLFPLAYER2007
03-26-2008, 06:33 PM
Japanese were trained to be suicide in land, sea and air, they wasnt playing around, if the USAAF didnt had drop the bomb, probally the war would have been prolonged by more 5 years or so. the would never give up.

If i had to choose to fight against germans or japanese, i'd choose germans, japanese were totally savages and cruel. at least germans threated pows decently.

Please watch your terms. Thanks

Bewolf
03-26-2008, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
Japanese were trained to be suicide in land, sea and air, they wasnt playing around, if the USAAF didnt had drop the bomb, probally the war would have been prolonged by more 5 years or so. the would never give up.

If i had to choose to fight against germans or japanese, i'd choose germans, japanese were totally savages and cruel. at least germans threated pows decently.

Do not tell that eastern european nations.

I edited some of the quoted content.

MB_Avro_UK
03-26-2008, 06:43 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MB_Avro_UK:
Hi all,

I'm not taking sides here.

But you MUST take into account the mindset of the allies in WW2. The US and Britain viewed themselves as victims of an unprovoked and a total war.

As regards Japan, the world saw them as an evil and sadistic regime.

It's easy today in our wise armchairs to criticise. But you have to project your present day judgements into the mindset of WW2.

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Sorry for not answering earlier. I will do that tomorrow once I have more time.

Enough to say this is not so much about ppl back then and their descisions in a time of war, it is more about modern day people's outlook on those happenings and their appearant refusal to accept that in "hindsight" the dropping was wrong or at least very very questionable. Back in the 40ies it was different. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes..back in the 40ies as you say it was different.

Both sides did things during WW2 that would not be acceptable today.

Maybe in 60 years time people similar to ourselves on this forum will be discussing the wrongs of putting criminals in prison?

Time moves on and maybe we become more benign?

Best Regards,
MB_Avro.

Badsight-
03-26-2008, 10:30 PM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
I think that alone shows enough of the americancentrism so obvious to others but americans themselves.
a lot of knee-jerk reactions happen based on this concept

3000 people died in 9/11 & its considered an absolute tradgedy

multiple disasters happened that year that involved more deaths , but who cares

"support the troops" is PR spin . criticising the govt or military is equal to criticising the whole country . . . . . . especially to the military minded

R_Target
03-27-2008, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
As Hirohito wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, your argument is pointless.

Hirohito wanted surrender on terms favorable to the Japanese, not the terms called for at Potsdam.

Bewolf
03-27-2008, 03:37 AM
Originally posted by R_Target:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
As Hirohito wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, your argument is pointless.

Hirohito wanted surrender on terms favorable to the Japanese, not the terms called for at Potsdam. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what? The Potsdam terms were not exactly a role model for peace negotiations. Especially with a guy like Stalin beeing part of it.

joeap
03-27-2008, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by WOLFPLAYER2007:
Japanese were trained to be suicide in land, sea and air, they wasnt playing around, if the USAAF didnt had drop the bomb, probally the war would have been prolonged by more 5 years or so. the would never give up.

If i had to choose to fight against germans or japanese, i'd choose germans, japanese were totally savages and cruel. at least germans threated pows decently.

Please watch your terms. Thanks

Sheer bollocks and ignorance. Yes the Japanese Army was cruel to ALL pows (at least they were consistent with their racism) but the Germans treated East Europeans like cr** in the same camps. A friend's father was a Yugoslav Partisan who became a POW sent to a forced labour camp and he said the French, Dutch and other Western prisoners were treated better than Yugoslav, Polish or Soviet prisoners.

joeap
03-27-2008, 03:55 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Have any of you given any thought to just how many 'women & children" would have ended up being killed if, instead of droping two nukes, we invaded Japan?

As Hirohito wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, your argument is pointless.

I also don't see why being forced into a war justifies intentional murder in huge scale.

Dropping the nukes was nothing but a show of "mine is longer" to the Russkies. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Which is more or less what I wrote in my post. At the least, as Beowolf said, the US could have adopted the attitude "even if we thought we had to ...it was one fo the worst things we did and we'll never again be the first to use them and that's why we don't think others should get them" It would give a lot more credibility to the efforts to prevent Iran from obtaining nukes but, what do I know.

DD_doubletap
03-27-2008, 05:38 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Have any of you given any thought to just how many 'women & children" would have ended up being killed if, instead of droping two nukes, we invaded Japan?

As Hirohito wanted to surrender before the bombs were dropped, your argument is pointless. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hirohito might have wanted to surrender toward the end of the war, but he seemed unwilling or incapable of forcing his military to do so. Emperor or not, Hirohito was not running the war or the military, but was rathermore a rubber stamp for much of the conflict.

When Hirohito did directly express his opinion that the war should end to his Cabinet and military they STILL did not accept the surrender immediately, and some members of the military attempted a coup to keep the war going. This all occurred after the nuking, so what would have been the reaction if the Allies had instead launched an invasion? Would that have improved the Japanese mindset toward surrender?

Thus, the Imperial Japanese did not surrender until the bombs are dropped, so I think you might be lacking the point.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
I also don't see why being forced into a war justifies intentional murder in huge scale.

War is killing on a large scale, period. Your question here was already answered by Buzzard. If the invasion of Japan would have cost hundreds of thousands of more lives, civilians included, then why were the nukes a less humane way of fighting the war to a conclusion?

And if you were scheduled to be on one of those landing craft to first hit the beaches of the Japanese homeland, I wonder if you would feel the same way?


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Dropping the nukes was nothing but a show of "mine is longer" to the Russkies.

Yes, Truman felt inadequate in the crotch area, so he decided to use nukes to compensate.

Am we really to take you seriously on this topic at this point, or do you want to dial back the silly stuff?

Doubletap

DD_doubletap
03-27-2008, 06:07 AM
Okay,

It seems to me that alot of this dialogue criticizing US/Allied actions during WWII is done with the benefit of both hindsight and removal of the actual threat and the challenge of winning the war. After all, we are living in 2008, and not in 1939-1945, and are not actually faced with the war as it was.

Tell you what. Why don't we try to refocus and try to ramp down the rhetoric.

EACH person, nomatter what nation you hail from, or what side you are taking in this debate, tell us how you would defeat the Axis WITHOUT the bombing of cities, either with conventional or nuclear weapons.

Remember; you are in the role of the Allies. Be realistic in your capabilities at the time. Let's set 1942 as the year since by this time all the major combatents are engaged.

Your goal is to minimize civilian casualties at all costs, but the longer the war drags on, the more civilians will be killed in Axis occupied areas.

Everyone give their strategy, and lets not interrupt anyone but let them lay out their case.

If your solution is to negotiate a peace, be realistic about the outcome of that decision for the year 2008.

Doubletap

310th Falcon
03-27-2008, 06:08 AM
Bottom line our European brothers Joeap, Bewolf, Bremspropeller, & Pirschjaeger...all of you guys are hyp@crites. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Bewolf wrote:

Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Agree!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Best Regards

joeap
03-27-2008, 07:01 AM
Originally posted by 310th Falcon:
Bottom line our European brothers Joeap, Bewolf, Bremspropeller, & Pirschjaeger...all of you guys are hyp@crites. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Bewolf wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Agree!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Best Regards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Let's see, personal insults, mistaken identity (I am Canadian born in fact), lack of readinh comprehension (you did not read my post) and hypocrisy?

Bremspropeller
03-27-2008, 07:11 AM
Thus, the Imperial Japanese did not surrender until the bombs are dropped, so I think you might be lacking the point.

Well, as those coups happened after the drop, I'd rather conclude the nukes were nothing but a shot in the dust.
The willingness to surrender was there - yet is was not agreed upon.


War is killing on a large scale, period.

There is a difference between "killing", aka soldiers on a battlefield, and "murder", aka killing civillians.
BSing about "total war" does not count in here.
Killing civillians is murder, doesn't matter on which side.


And if you were scheduled to be on one of those landing craft to first hit the beaches of the Japanese homeland, I wonder if you would feel the same way?

So what? Were these guys soldiers?
They volunteered to go to war. Some of them were drafted - bad luck.
But then again who asked the german soldiers on eastern front about their feelings?
Being a soldier means fulfilling tasks and orders, not bragging about feelings.


Your goal is to minimize civilian casualties at all costs, but the longer the war drags on, the more civilians will be killed in Axis occupied areas.

I guess bombing french towns or shooting up french farmers on their field is validated by that policy.
Some French are still pretty p1ssed about Americans for those reasons...



Am we really to take you seriously on this topic at this point, or do you want to dial back the silly stuff?

It's quite bold for a new guy, coming in and doubting someones commons sense.
If I were you, I'd try to get it on nice and slow, before calling for a mudfight.


Beloved member of our community "310th Falcon" also had something to "contribute" to this dicussion:

Bottom line our <span class="ev_code_RED">European brothers</span> Joeap, Bewolf, Bremspropeller, & Pirschjaeger...all of you guys are hyp@crites.

Mabye you're right. But hey, that'll get us in the same pot with you and your American brothers, talking about "spreading peace and democracy" in the world, by declaring war on anybody who sits on an oil-bubble or who wants to get his own nuclear power-plant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

joeap
03-27-2008, 07:25 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:



<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Your goal is to minimize civilian casualties at all costs, but the longer the war drags on, the more civilians will be killed in Axis occupied areas.

I guess bombing french towns or shooting up french farmers on their field is validated by that policy.
Some French are still pretty p1ssed about Americans for those reasons...


</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I was with you on the rest of the argument but that one is just dumb...I saw an interview with a former German soldier stationed in france during the war in "The Sorrow and the Pity" that said the opposite, that French were angry with the Germans for the bombings and civilians caught in the crossfire. Or do you think when the German Army or any army is entrenched in a villiage or in a city...or using the railways or roads (sometimes hiding ammo in farmers carts)that the opposing army won't try to use heavy artillery or airpower to soften it up or interdict it. Don't tell me that's the same as incendiary firebombing of Hamburg or Tokyo.

Bremspropeller
03-27-2008, 07:27 AM
I've had a brag with a Frenchman long time ago.
That's what he told me.

Bewolf
03-27-2008, 07:52 AM
Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
Okay,

It seems to me that alot of this dialogue criticizing US/Allied actions during WWII is done with the benefit of both hindsight and removal of the actual threat and the challenge of winning the war. After all, we are living in 2008, and not in 1939-1945, and are not actually faced with the war as it was.

Tell you what. Why don't we try to refocus and try to ramp down the rhetoric.

EACH person, nomatter what nation you hail from, or what side you are taking in this debate, tell us how you would defeat the Axis WITHOUT the bombing of cities, either with conventional or nuclear weapons.

Remember; you are in the role of the Allies. Be realistic in your capabilities at the time. Let's set 1942 as the year since by this time all the major combatents are engaged.

Your goal is to minimize civilian casualties at all costs, but the longer the war drags on, the more civilians will be killed in Axis occupied areas.

Everyone give their strategy, and lets not interrupt anyone but let them lay out their case.

If your solution is to negotiate a peace, be realistic about the outcome of that decision for the year 2008.

Doubletap

To answer this question, and my apologies for not getting at it earlier as you asked this before, you should go and read again what was written about it already. It is there, not plainly adressing this question, but giving an answer nevertheless.

Nobody nowadays "seriously" critizses the actions and descisions by the ppl of the US "back then".
We nowadays do have the benefit of hindsight, though, knowing all the facts and details. Amongst these facts for example is the revelation that the heaviest bombings of Germany were conducted in 1945. During a time Germany was about to collaps anyways. These bombings were neither war deciding nor shortening. Most bombs were dropped over towns and villages at times with the reasoning that only a road went through them. The vast majority of these bombings were simply performed to make use of the huge bomber fleet and to impress the russians. tens, if not hundrets of thousand women, children and old ppl died in those last raids completly in vain. It is one thing to target strategic important targets during times the allies had no other real means to hurt Germany. It is something completly different to bomb this area when your armies are rushing in with hardly any opposition or strategic targets worth mentioning left.

The same applies to Japan. The descision to drop the A-bomb was much more political then military motivated.
1. It was not nessecary to drop the bomb on a city. There were enough military targets left to hit to make a propper impression. Heck, it would probably have been enough to detonate the bomb over the bay of tokio far enough away to hardly cause casulties. The fallout would have been a problem, but ppl back then had not enough knowledge of this effect and I do not think anybody could have been really blamed for that.
But istead it was a city first of all to make a political statement towards the russians. The japanese wanted to surrender. To my knowledge, the one major detail the japanese and the US did not agree upon was to let the Emperor in power. Considering he was a puppet anyways without real power, that was negliable.
but, truth or not, there were other options the US had but to bomb a city. These options were not even "tried". And though it is to a degree understandable the US back in those times had not much interest in sparing it's enemies in any way, we are not living in these times anymore. To still use the same reasoning like the folks back then is nothing short of stagnation in morale and ethic development and ignorance to a changing world. The US is not at war with Japan nor Germany anymore.

What I fear most americans to this very day don't realize...it wasn't, nor is it the US's military strengh giving it it's greatest asset in foreign affairs. It was their standing to humanitarian ideals. Only with these ideals were so many countries and ppl willing to follow the US. They followed an idea, an idea the US represented. And the drop of the bomb was the first step to dimish this immense credit the US had, a process that continued in Vietnam and now Iraq.
And ppl really wonder why the US loses its support? When members here brag about killing women and children? I dare to say this all damaged and hurt the US more then an invasion of Japan could ever have.

310th Falcon
03-27-2008, 07:57 AM
Joeap wrote:

mistaken identity (I am Canadian born in fact)
Sorry mate...didn't mean to leave out our Northern Brothers from Canada...http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

talking about "spreading peace and democracy" in the world, by declaring war on anybody who sits on an oil-bubble or who wants to get his own nuclear power-plant
Yup...lucky your country doesn't have an oil-bubble...you might be next...Word!!

Bewolf Wrote:

What I fear most americans to this very day don't realize...it wasn't, nor is it the US's military strengh giving it it's greatest asset in foreign affairs. It was their standing to humanitarian ideals. Only with these ideals were so many countries and ppl willing to follow the US.
Don't you feel the Anti-US love here!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

Hey Bewolf...better drop your American girlfriend fast...she might turn on you mate. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif


Best Regards

DD_doubletap
03-27-2008, 08:13 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Thus, the Imperial Japanese did not surrender until the bombs are dropped, so I think you might be lacking the point.

Well, as those coups happened after the drop, I'd rather conclude the nukes were nothing but a shot in the dust.

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Right, those coups were initiated AFTER the drop, thus the Japanese were seriously considering surrender AFTER the drop, not before. There were no coup attempts previously because there was no real, real as in actual, move to surrender by the Japanese.

THUS, the bombs forced the Japanese to consider their options in a more realistic light, and that light told them there were OUT of options.

Thanks for making my point.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
The willingness to surrender was there - yet is was not agreed upon.


Not being able to agree on surrender, is not surrender.

Many people in the German army wanted to negotiate a peace with the Allies at various stages of the war when it became increasingly obvious Germany was going to lose, and badly.

Wanting to surrender did nothing to stop the war and the bloodshed because those actually running the war did not want surrender, and those fighting it did not have the will or the ability to remove those people.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">War is killing on a large scale, period.

There is a difference between "killing", aka soldiers on a battlefield, and "murder", aka killing civillians.
BSing about "total war" does not count in here.
Killing civillians is murder, doesn't matter on which side.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You have a valid point here, in such that I do believe there IS a difference between killing and murder.

If I kill someone who is trying to murder me when I posed no threat to them, we are not equally culpable. In fact, as self-defense, I am not culpable at all. Thus, kill and murder are different. Granted.

However, despite your dismissal of Total War as BS, it was a reality. The Germans and Japanese engaged in it in there opening attacks, continued throughout the war, and on top of that engaged in genocide and wide-scale atrocities.

So, according to your viewpoint, the Allies were to NOT engage in ANY activity that might kill civilians despite their enemies doing so as PART OF THEIR WAR AIMS, or their entire justification for fighting the war was moot and rendered them just as bad as them?

Further, leaving the Axis to freely slaughter civilians and gain more strength is the morally superios position to getting involved and having to kill some civilians in the process?


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">And if you were scheduled to be on one of those landing craft to first hit the beaches of the Japanese homeland, I wonder if you would feel the same way?

So what? Were these guys soldiers?
They volunteered to go to war. Some of them were drafted - bad luck.
But then again who asked the german soldiers on eastern front about their feelings?
Being a soldier means fulfilling tasks and orders, not bragging about feelings.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what?

Nice way to dodge the question, Brems. You do that alot.

How would YOU feel if you were put into a landing craft and sent to attack the Japanese mainland when you know your side had another option that would not get you killed?

You are pretty cavalier about the lives of other people (something you accuse others of being), but what if it were YOUR keister on the line?

And yes, I have no sympathy for Germans on the eastern front because THEY ATTACKED THE RUSSIANS! They then proceeded to murder people there as a matter of war policy, and not just as effects of fighting the Red Army? Do you get the difference?

No, you don't, because then you might have to concede you might not be 100% right.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Your goal is to minimize civilian casualties at all costs, but the longer the war drags on, the more civilians will be killed in Axis occupied areas.

I guess bombing french towns or shooting up french farmers on their field is validated by that policy.
Some French are still pretty p1ssed about Americans for those reasons...

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are not even bothering to respond to the questions I pose, so why bother? What does that have to do with what I proposed?

I gave you the option to come up with a plan to defeat Germany, civilian casualty free, and you can't come up with one. Hmmmm, wonder why that is?

Its easy to take a position, but a bit harder to defend it I guess.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Am we really to take you seriously on this topic at this point, or do you want to dial back the silly stuff?

It's quite bold for a new guy, coming in and doubting someones commons sense.
If I were you, I'd try to get it on nice and slow, before calling for a mudfight.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Also irrelevant.

What does my being new or not have to do with the validity of my arguments?

Nothing.

I guess you being somehow 'senior' on the boards give you some sort of special clout?

Nope. Can't see how it would.

And I am not calling for a mudfight. I am trying to have a conversation here, but ridiculous assertions like phallus-envy being the reason to wipe out two Japanese cities are not worthy of a serious response. Guess you can't see that either.


Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Mabye you're right. But hey, that'll get us in the same pot with you and your American brothers, talking about "spreading peace and democracy" in the world, by declaring war on anybody who sits on an oil-bubble or who wants to get his own nuclear power-plant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Come back and talk to me after you put down the Michael Moore DVD's and the Chomsky books. That riff is way past old.

Sheez.

Doubletap

Pirschjaeger
03-27-2008, 08:19 AM
Originally posted by 310th Falcon:
Bottom line our European brothers Joeap, Bewolf, Bremspropeller, & Pirschjaeger...all of you guys are hyp@crites. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.

Bewolf wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Never discuss with stupid people.
They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Agree!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/winky.gif


Best Regards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


This thread has gone from ok, to bad, to worse and was very close to being locked. But then the members got responsible and started toning it down. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Falcon,

You now have 3 choices;

1. contribute something worth reading

2. stay out

3. be kept out

I suggest choice #1 or #2 as there will be no second warning.

To everyone else, I'll leave his post as an example of something that will not be tolerated.

Fritz

Bewolf
03-27-2008, 08:20 AM
Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Mabye you're right. But hey, that'll get us in the same pot with you and your American brothers, talking about "spreading peace and democracy" in the world, by declaring war on anybody who sits on an oil-bubble or who wants to get his own nuclear power-plant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Come back and talk to me after you put down the Michael Moore DVD's and the Chomsky books. That riff is way past old.

Sheez.

Doubletap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unluckily, Brems got it down to the point. No matter how old you percieve that phrase, it is the core of the problem. The folks in th US may consider it babbling. To folks outside the US it's still quite troublesome.

As I said, the world, especially the western world, has moved on from times gunboat politics were legit.

310th Falcon
03-27-2008, 08:31 AM
Bewolf Wrote:

invasion of Japan could ever have
Invasion?? funny...

I'm station in 35 miles Northwest of Japan Bewolf. Been here for fours years and have many Japanese friends. The friendship between our two countries has never been better. One of our strongest allies in the Pacific Region!!

I believe enough is enough with this Anti-US comments...really!!

Sorry Pirschjaeger...enough of this


Best Regards

Bewolf
03-27-2008, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by 310th Falcon:
Bewolf Wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">invasion of Japan could ever have
Invasion?? funny...

I'm station in 35 miles Northwest of Japan Bewolf. Been here for fours years and have many Japanese friends. The friendship between our two countries has never been better. One of our strongest allies in the Pacific Region!!

I believe enough is enough with this Anti-US comments...really!!

Now I know why many people called this forum the Ubi-zoo!



Best Regards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, I consider myself friend of quite a few US folks as well. That never posed a problem discussing these problems. But I suppose doing this in a bar with a couple of beers and no "Oh you just hate us! ANTI! ANTI! *point finger*" gives it another atmosphere. Else these folks wouldn't agree to me so much.

Just underlines my argument of americacentrism. You folks are too stuck up to even recognize friends when you see them.

310th Falcon
03-27-2008, 08:41 AM
Just underlines my argument of americacentrism. You folks are too stuck up to even recognize friends when you see them.
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

Best Regards

Bremspropeller
03-27-2008, 09:11 AM
EDIT:

Read my post on top of p.9.

I think anything that needs to be said is said over there.

DD_doubletap
03-27-2008, 09:15 AM
Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Mabye you're right. But hey, that'll get us in the same pot with you and your American brothers, talking about "spreading peace and democracy" in the world, by declaring war on anybody who sits on an oil-bubble or who wants to get his own nuclear power-plant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Come back and talk to me after you put down the Michael Moore DVD's and the Chomsky books. That riff is way past old.

Sheez.

Doubletap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unluckily, Brems got it down to the point. No matter how old you percieve that phrase, it is the core of the problem. The folks in th US may consider it babbling. To folks outside the US it's still quite troublesome.

As I said, the world, especially the western world, has moved on from times gunboat politics were legit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I will agree with you on one point. We are certainly looking at it with two entirely different perspectives when it comes the current world situation.

I wish we cold come to some kind of consensus, because we have much more in common than not, and from my perspective, we are going to need each other this century.

Can I state something here;

I don't bear any animosity for anyone here for their nationality. I hope that is understood and I believe nothing I post causes one to rationally believe otherwise.

Through IL2 I have met, over the internet and in person, some great M8's from Britain, Canada and Western Europe. We don't agree on everything (although politics is usually not the focus of the conversations), but we get along well.

When I discuss these historical issues, I do NOT have an axe to grind with Germans or Japanese. I am not interested in beating people over the head about their nation's histories, and I am certainly not trying to impugne anyone or blame them for things that occured before their time.

That would be unfair, and I don't engage in it.

I do, however, feel that sometimes there is an effort to either minimize certain things done by the Axis nations during the war, and/or emphasize Allied actions to achieve some sort of parity. From both a National viewpoint, and a historical one, that tends to rub me the wrong way.

I can understand the tendency to do such, but I think its something that has to be resisted or we learn nothing from it. I think we all have to strive to look at those events objectively.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. I don't think the United States' conduct either during the Second World War or after it is beyond reproach. Being run by human beings who are fallible, by definition we can't perfect.

And, okay, maybe we are a little resistant, maybe even stubborn, about listening to criticism. Maybe its part of the national character, or maybe we feel that being the "Hyperpower" as one Frenchman put it, we are always catching **** for everything that happens in the world and are sick and tired of it.

I do know that criticism needs to be fair and hyperbole does not help.

Brems,

I am not trying to get in your face, but when you try to boil down the US decision to drop the atom bombs to America wanting to wave our junk to the world, how am I am supposed to address that?

Yeah, I get the point, and I have heard the theory you are putting out.

The only reason the US dropped the bombs to scare the Soviet Union with a live fire demonstration because we knew problems with the Russians were just around the corner.

Okay, nice theory, and one that can be discussed without the need to mention a phallus.

I don't agree with it, and we can argue it on its merits, and MAYBE we can then figure out if its the truth, false, or has some element of both.

With the other method, you make us out to be not only to be monsters, BUT monsters for the most ridiculous of motivations.

Americans get a lot of **** from others about not knowing anything about the world, and I say you are lucky if some know who there Vice President, so I here you.

But, based on some of the commentary here, even from people who claim to "know America", there is alot others don't know about us as well. Worse, they seemed determined to keep to their views they have.

For example, when I mentioned Michael Moore; it was more than just a tag-line. If you are living outside the US, and are basing your opinion of this nation on ANYTHING he has written or done, you are getting a grotesquely distorted vision of this country at BEST.

Doubletap

DD_doubletap
03-27-2008, 09:31 AM
Brems,

I am not going to bother to answer you point for point, because it is, frankly, pointless.

Let me just point out an example where I don't think you are even bothering to read what I write:


But does that mean I should praise the allies for EVERYTHING they have done?

I did NOT say that, not even once. In fact, several times, I said the Allies were not blameless in the atrocity area and certainly engaged in bombing of civilians, for example.

I am not sure who you are arguing with, but its not me so let's drop it.



Sorry, but I just don't share your enthusiasm about the allies being the "liberators" of the poor, the weak and the supressed.

That much is obvious, as you seem oblivious or in denial over the extent and severity of what the Axis powers did.

If you don't share that "enthusiasm" as you call it, you probably were not Korean, Chinese, Polish, Hungarian, French, Phillipino, or Jewish to name a few during that period. Being one of those and in the path of Axis soldiers might have given you a different perspective.

For the record, by the way, I mean the western Allied powers. I am well aware of what the Soviets did to many of the above groups, the Germans they overran or captured, and to millions of their own people.

Doubletap

Bremspropeller
03-27-2008, 09:32 AM
Double, I've been to the US a lot.
I've met lots of people there and my opinion on the US is based upon meeting them, not upon watching Michael Moore.
The people I met were kind and nice, pretty much all the time. Yet, the also showed an extent of disinterest about the world across the pond(s).
Those who have been stationed overeas knew a lot more than those who have never been out of the country (which is only logical).

But let's come back to Moore.

I'm seriously NOT believing anything he either writes or produeces on video.
He surely has a point, but he exaggerates and only covers half the story.

I can assure you that most people don't know America just based upon Moore's "work".
There's enough "America" on TV, in the papers and on radio any day.
Some is positive footage, some is negative. it's pretty much balance, though.

People are surely not to point fingers, at least thats not what I'm trying to do.
I'm only trying to point at issues that seem off or worth a notice to me.
But then again many Americans are very sensitive to criticism.
That is a well-known fact http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It's okay, as Bewolf wrote above, criticism might get into some wrong direction on a board as this one.
Talking about politics, religion and sports should rather be done over a cold beer in a pub.

I'm seriously not trying to run an agenda against the US or anybody.
The only wish I have to Americans on this board is not to be too sensitive about criticism.
Nobody like critisicsm, thats for sure, but noone really wants to bash anyone over here.
Irony, sarcasm and other means of style and language are here to provocate.

Take it as if a Brit would call you a c**t and have a beer with him over that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Bewolf
03-27-2008, 10:37 AM
Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bewolf:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Mabye you're right. But hey, that'll get us in the same pot with you and your American brothers, talking about "spreading peace and democracy" in the world, by declaring war on anybody who sits on an oil-bubble or who wants to get his own nuclear power-plant http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/34.gif

Come back and talk to me after you put down the Michael Moore DVD's and the Chomsky books. That riff is way past old.

Sheez.

Doubletap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unluckily, Brems got it down to the point. No matter how old you percieve that phrase, it is the core of the problem. The folks in th US may consider it babbling. To folks outside the US it's still quite troublesome.

As I said, the world, especially the western world, has moved on from times gunboat politics were legit. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, I will agree with you on one point. We are certainly looking at it with two entirely different perspectives when it comes the current world situation.

I wish we cold come to some kind of consensus, because we have much more in common than not, and from my perspective, we are going to need each other this century.

Can I state something here;

I don't bear any animosity for anyone here for their nationality. I hope that is understood and I believe nothing I post causes one to rationally believe otherwise.

Through IL2 I have met, over the internet and in person, some great M8's from Britain, Canada and Western Europe. We don't agree on everything (although politics is usually not the focus of the conversations), but we get along well.

When I discuss these historical issues, I do NOT have an axe to grind with Germans or Japanese. I am not interested in beating people over the head about their nation's histories, and I am certainly not trying to impugne anyone or blame them for things that occured before their time.

That would be unfair, and I don't engage in it.

I do, however, feel that sometimes there is an effort to either minimize certain things done by the Axis nations during the war, and/or emphasize Allied actions to achieve some sort of parity. From both a National viewpoint, and a historical one, that tends to rub me the wrong way.

I can understand the tendency to do such, but I think its something that has to be resisted or we learn nothing from it. I think we all have to strive to look at those events objectively.

I have said it before, and I will say it again. I don't think the United States' conduct either during the Second World War or after it is beyond reproach. Being run by human beings who are fallible, by definition we can't perfect.

And, okay, maybe we are a little resistant, maybe even stubborn, about listening to criticism. Maybe its part of the national character, or maybe we feel that being the "Hyperpower" as one Frenchman put it, we are always catching **** for everything that happens in the world and are sick and tired of it.

I do know that criticism needs to be fair and hyperbole does not help.

Brems,

I am not trying to get in your face, but when you try to boil down the US decision to drop the atom bombs to America wanting to wave our junk to the world, how am I am supposed to address that?

Yeah, I get the point, and I have heard the theory you are putting out.

The only reason the US dropped the bombs to scare the Soviet Union with a live fire demonstration because we knew problems with the Russians were just around the corner.

Okay, nice theory, and one that can be discussed without the need to mention a phallus.

I don't agree with it, and we can argue it on its merits, and MAYBE we can then figure out if its the truth, false, or has some element of both.

With the other method, you make us out to be not only to be monsters, BUT monsters for the most ridiculous of motivations.

Americans get a lot of **** from others about not knowing anything about the world, and I say you are lucky if some know who there Vice President, so I here you.

But, based on some of the commentary here, even from people who claim to "know America", there is alot others don't know about us as well. Worse, they seemed determined to keep to their views they have.

For example, when I mentioned Michael Moore; it was more than just a tag-line. If you are living outside the US, and are basing your opinion of this nation on ANYTHING he has written or done, you are getting a grotesquely distorted vision of this country at BEST.

Doubletap </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Look Double. I know where you are coming from. A actually respect your opinion. Unlike others on this board, you made your points which I am sure you believe are valid. And maybe they are after all. That depends on the individual POV I suppose and there are always more sides to an argument then just one.

I also agree that the US and Europe need each other. China, India and several other nations not sharing believes and ideas of Freedom and Democracy as well as human rights in the western tradition to this extent or not at all are on the raise. Be it as it is, I consider the two continents, and I mean all of North America, Canada and even Mexico included, not just the US, as dependent on each other. We are relatives, after all.
I also consider the US itself as a personal topic. I tended to love the US. I travelled there quite extensivly. Beautiful, wonderful country with so much potential even for future greatness.

But to go on on this. No, I do not try to dimish the US contributions towards WW2. In fact, and I stated this on this board and other places before, I am extremly thankful for the sacrifices the western allies took upon themselves to rid the world of the regimes both in Japan and Germany. I doubt I'd be here typing this if the Nazis were still in Power. I am not exactly a person running with the mainstream and that would not have been seen lightly under such a government. So I very much do know to value this freedom. That is also the reason why I do not judge the ppl in power back then, and for sure not the common allied grunts. There were atrocities even comitted on the allied side which I personally don't wear a personal grudge for. Especially in light of what germans did to others and their own. I'd be hard pressed to be judgemental over the allies when my own folks commited such stuff.

But, I do not live in such a regime. I never shot or killed or tortured anybody. Quite the opposite. I studied my countries history thouroughly and do not want to see something like that ever happening again. And this brings us to the current point. As said before, from "nowadays" perspective I very well can be judgemental about the "current" generations in power. I can openly admit to mistakes and crimes Germany comitted, even back in those times in Germany they were seen as legit. But it boggles my mind others can not, especially as they have so much less to blame themselves
for.

Added to that, the last decade was immensly troublesome.
I am under the heavy impression that current US folks do not live up to the legacy their forfathers left them with. The US grew to a super power after WW2. And unluckily, power corrupts. The more after their sole contender, the USSR, broke up. After that there was a huge shift in attitude in the US.

Since Bush took over things made a sharp turn to the worse. I am not one of those nutjobs believing Bush had anything to do with 911, but he sure used it to implement a neo liberal agenda big time. The original intentions of this agende I even recognize as positive. Bringing freedom and democracy throughout the world is a noble goal. But you know that german phrase? The path to hell is plastered with good intentions. And Afghanistan and Iraq proved to be the US's personal hell. Not that only, while Afghanistan was understandable, the US seriously was so arrogant to lie into the face of the world. And even worse, into the faces of ppl and countries that looked up to them, their friends. When critique came up, Bush went along lines such as "Those who are not with us, are against us". That stuck big time. Fox News did their own part in this. And then the US did everything alone. Kyoto? A means to control the free capitalism of the US. The international court? Could be used against the US. The US lifted itself above the world. Considered itself more important then the rest of the world. Considered itself "better" then the rest of the world. That was not patriotism anymore...that was and still is pure nationalism, worthy of imperial Germany before world war I.
US folks had this tendency to not discuss, but to point fingers once anybody dared to doubt the US, even in their own country. You see this in this very thread already. Critque of the US = "YOU HATE US!". Domsticly, ppl were told to leave the country if they were not willingly following Bush rethorics sometimes by their own neighbours!

I ask you, Double...how would you react getting these very responses again and again over topics you consider important? Imagine you tell a Chinese "hey, what you do in Tibet is not ok!" and he replies with "YOU JUST HATE US!". Not the best basis to take someone serious or give him the benefit of his own opinion. That line of reply also does not exactly work wonders when it comes to argue those blames.

The reason why the US gets this Flak to this degree is quite simple as well. The US is the flagship of democracy. It is also seen this way in the rest of the world. There Europe, Canada and the US is seen as one monothilitic block. That means, whatever the US does is directly falling out on the reputation of ALL the western world, Canada and Europe included. Your actions dictate how, for example the middle east, sees "us" as well. That is something else the US does not realize. They are not repsonsible for themselves only. Their actions pretty much backfire to ALL NATO members and more importantly, the ideals of a free and just world without double standarts. That is not what Germany fought for after WW2. And I can only repeat it, cosidering all the places the US has its hands in, the US population is grossly undereducated and more often then not shows a stark black and white outlook on the world, without any "factual" knowledge of the worlds regions. Bush atm is a prime example of this, and as the US president directly reponsible for how the world percieves all of the US, as unjust that may appear. But then again, this is exactly the way the US also percieves the world. Only by its most obvious layer, without taking the time to dig a bit deeper. And why should they, after all FOX News has the answer to everything.

As I said, I've extensive connections to the US. And you folks here, or at least some, ARE the exception. And "you" especially because you don't go into immidiate fight mode but actually take the time to read and process, even if you disagree. Honest kudos to that.

I am not trying to argue against you here. I may very well be wrong. But this is my honest perception of the US at present. And not my only. So you may understand where I am coming from.

P.S. That said, I am more then willing to concede that europans are arrogant over these topics most of the time, not any less then the US. I am probably no expception to that. After all, there are cultural differences and outlooks. And the US was always a bit more "wild". I do not mean this ina degatory term. Europe got used to live in peace after WW2, and does not see issues like terrorism as that important really. Which imho is a mistake, and I actually do believe more german troops need to be send to Afghanistan AND to Iraq. We are the western world. And it is in our own best interest to leave a good impression and clear up the mess. However this ends down there, it will influence the diplomatic relations with the middle east for the next 100 years, and nobody there will make a big difference between the US and Europe in this regard, no matter how much blame is to put on Europe in reality. Ppl look at it often enough way too short sighted.
Just to give you a few points where I actually agree to american critique of Europe.

DKoor
03-27-2008, 10:51 AM
A lot of wisedom in this topic.
Luckily for us all most of countries in the world do not have such smart leaderships.

DD_doubletap
03-27-2008, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Double, I've been to the US a lot.
I've met lots of people there and my opinion on the US is based upon meeting them, not upon watching Michael Moore.
The people I met were kind and nice, pretty much all the time. Yet, the also showed an extent of disinterest about the world across the pond(s).
Those who have been stationed overeas knew a lot more than those who have never been out of the country (which is only logical).

But let's come back to Moore.

I'm seriously NOT believing anything he either writes or produeces on video.
He surely has a point, but he exaggerates and only covers half the story.

I can assure you that most people don't know America just based upon Moore's "work".
There's enough "America" on TV, in the papers and on radio any day.
Some is positive footage, some is negative. it's pretty much balance, though.

People are surely not to point fingers, at least thats not what I'm trying to do.
I'm only trying to point at issues that seem off or worth a notice to me.
But then again many Americans are very sensitive to criticism.
That is a well-known fact http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

It's okay, as Bewolf wrote above, criticism might get into some wrong direction on a board as this one.
Talking about politics, religion and sports should rather be done over a cold beer in a pub.

I'm seriously not trying to run an agenda against the US or anybody.
The only wish I have to Americans on this board is not to be too sensitive about criticism.
Nobody like critisicsm, thats for sure, but noone really wants to bash anyone over here.
Irony, sarcasm and other means of style and language are here to provocate.

Take it as if a Brit would call you a c**t and have a beer with him over that. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Brems,

I hear ya, M8. I guess sometimes the criticism takes on a tinge that's less than, errr, constructive or friendly.

I can take a M8 busting my chops, even if its the truth he's telling me about myself. Its harder to take when it seems unfair or incessant or off-topic.

Example:

SCENE - English Pub - Brems and Doubletap are sitting at a table. Doubletap is trying to catch the attention of a waitress.

Brems: "Doubletap, you're a fat $%&#*(^."

Doubletap: "What?!"

Brems: "What do you weigh? 300lbs?"

Doubletap: "WHAT!?! I'm 220, tops."

Brems: "Still, a bit hefty."

Doubletap: "Who asked you?"

Brems: "You did, just now."

Doubletap: "I asked you what you wanted to drink!"

Brems: "Still, am I right, you could still stand to lose a few pounds.

Waitress comes over finally

Waitress: "What can I get you two?"

Doubletap (Annoyed): "I'll have a pint of anything..."

Brems: "Perhaps a light beer?"

Doubletap: "Why YOU?!"

Doubletap launches himself over the table at Brems

Brems: "My, you Americans ARE violent-Gurrgk!"

Doubletap: "Sonnuva-"

END

Bremspropeller
03-27-2008, 11:08 AM
If I hurt you, I apologize, it was certainly not my intention to be rude, unfair or mean.

But I think you can understand, one might get a bit hot-tempered if one's been accused of being a "hater" all the time, just trying to make a point.

I'm glad we both see a bit clearer now and can go on and argue like grown people, not turning a topic into an accusation-fest http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Ob.Emann
03-27-2008, 11:21 AM
Perhaps THESE well known America-haters can clarify the issue a bit...


"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.....My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942 - 1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945 - 1949 (Truman).

"...I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life......We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow.

"Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
E. B. Potter, naval historian.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment......It was a mistake ever to drop it......(the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it......It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet.

"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan.....I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from...the tight blockade. "I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning."
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd.

(The atomic bomb) "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion.....it was clear to a number of people...that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate.....it was a sin - to use a good word - (a word that) should be used more often - to kill non-combatants...."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy.

"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb........the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945).

"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."
Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China.

"....from the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell..."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.

"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it...........I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."
Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.

"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is the the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively in the Commander in Chief decide to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."
Arnold, quoted by Eaker.

"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."
General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision.

"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."
W. Averall Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces, and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson.

"I voiced to him (Secretary of War Stimpson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'........It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry od Russia into Manchuria."
Herbert Hoover.

"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it....He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants.... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him."
Richard M. Nixon.

"...he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it did later anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, from an interview with MacArthur


Don't suppose they were all just reading too much Noam Chomsky, do you?

Rattler68
03-27-2008, 06:04 PM
Excellent post, Emann. Seems to have quieted the room a bit.

WN_Barbarossa
03-28-2008, 04:24 AM
I really enjoy this topic.
When americanism and anti-americanism meets, they annihilate each other and radiates out energy in the from of photons and gamma rays http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif.

BTW

How would YOU feel if you were put into a landing craft and sent to attack the Japanese mainland when you know your side had another option that would not get you killed?

I really dislike this "how would you feel" arguement, since the answer is always cr@ppy, but this doesn't change the historical facts or the physical laws or anything. (How would you feel when somebody just dropped a 25 Kt thermonuclear device on your head?) If you want ot talk about history, this forum is a perfect place. If you want to talk about feelings and make personal accusations, an emo forum would be better.

Bewolf
03-28-2008, 09:01 AM
I suppose this topic is settled then.

Aaron_GT
03-28-2008, 09:38 AM
But let's come back to Moore.

Moore's a polemicist, not a journalist or a documentary maker, and there are polemicists at both ends of the political spectrum.

Polemics, if it prompts people to think about things (even if they don't agree with the polemicist) isn't a bad thing. Ditto satire.

Better to come to a view of the world based on examining all options, and in response to challeges to your views than just having one of the world by default and never being open to challenge, or change if evidence suggests a change in world view is indicated. It's better than complacency.

Blood_Splat
03-28-2008, 11:27 AM
(How would you feel when somebody just dropped a 25 Kt thermonuclear device on your head?)
I would feel vaporised.

Von_Rat
03-28-2008, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by HH_Emann:
Perhaps THESE well known America-haters can clarify the issue a bit...


"It is my opinion that the use of this barbarous weapon at Hiroshima and Nagasaki were of no material assistance in our war against Japan. The Japanese were already defeated and ready to surrender.....My own feeling was that in being the first to use it, we had adopted the ethical standard common to the barbarians of the Dark Ages. I was not taught to make war in that fashion, and wars cannot be won by destroying women and children."
Admiral William D. Leahy. 5-star admiral, president of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff and the combined American-British Chiefs of Staff, and chief of staff to the commander-in-chief of the army and navy from 1942 - 1945 (Roosevelt) and 1945 - 1949 (Truman).

"...I felt that it was an unnecessary loss of civilian life......We had them beaten. They hadn't enough food, they couldn't do anything."
Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, commander in chief of the Pacific Fleet, quoted by his widow.

"Nimitz considered the atomic bomb somehow indecent, certainly not a legitimate form of warfare."
E. B. Potter, naval historian.

"The first atomic bomb was an unnecessary experiment......It was a mistake ever to drop it......(the scientists) had this toy and they wanted to try it out, so they dropped it......It killed a lot of Japs, but the Japs had put out a lot of peace feelers through Russia long before."
Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, commander of the Third Fleet.

"Especially it is good to see the truth told about the last days of the war with Japan.....I was with the Fleet during that period; and every officer in the Fleet knew that Japan would eventually capitulate from...the tight blockade. "I, too, felt strongly that it was a mistake to drop the atom bombs, especially without warning."
Rear Admiral Richard Byrd.

(The atomic bomb) "was not necessary to bring the war to a successful conclusion.....it was clear to a number of people...that the war was very nearly over. The Japanese were nearly ready to capitulate.....it was a sin - to use a good word - (a word that) should be used more often - to kill non-combatants...."
Rear Admiral Lewis L. Strauss, special assistant to the Secretary of the Navy.

"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb........the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945).

"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."
Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China.

"....from the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell..."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.

"Arnold's view was that it (dropping the atomic bomb) was unnecessary. He said that he knew that the Japanese wanted peace. There were political implications in the decision and Arnold did not feel it was the military's job to question it...........I knew nobody in the high echelons of the Army Air Force who had any question about having to invade Japan."
Lieutenant General Ira C. Eaker, Arnold's deputy.

"When the question comes up of whether we use the atomic bomb or not, my view is the the Air Force will not oppose the use of the bomb, and they will deliver it effectively in the Commander in Chief decide to use it. But it is not necessary to use it in order to conquer the Japanese without the necessity of a land invasion."
Arnold, quoted by Eaker.

"No! I think we had the Japs licked anyhow. I think they would have quit probably within a week or so of when they did quit."
General George C. Kenney, commander of Army Air Force units in the Southwest Pacific, when asked whether using the atomic bomb had been a wise decision.

"...Both felt Japan would surrender without use of the bomb, and neither knew why a second bomb was used."
W. Averall Harriman, in private notes after a dinner with General Carl "Tooey" Spaatz (commander in July 1945 of the Pacific-based US Army Strategic Air Forces, and Spaatz's one-time deputy commanding general in Europe, Frederick L. Anderson.

"I voiced to him (Secretary of War Stimpson) my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was at that very moment seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of 'face'........It wasn't necessary to hit them with that awful thing"
General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

"I told MacArthur of my memorandum of mid-May 1945 to Truman, that peace could be had with Japan by which our major objectives would be accomplished. MacArthur said that was correct and that we would have avoided all of the losses, the Atomic bomb, and the entry od Russia into Manchuria."
Herbert Hoover.

"MacArthur once spoke to me very eloquently about it....He thought it a tragedy that the Bomb was ever exploded. MacArthur believed that the same restrictions ought to apply to atomic weapons as to conventional weapons, that the military objective should always be to limit damage to noncombatants.... MacArthur, you see, was a soldier. He believed in using force only against military targets, and that is why the nuclear thing turned him off, which I think speaks well of him."
Richard M. Nixon.

"...he saw no military justification for the dropping of the bomb. The war might have ended weeks earlier, he said, if the United States had agreed, as it did later anyway, to the retention of the institution of the emperor."
Norman Cousins, from an interview with MacArthur


Don't suppose they were all just reading too much Noam Chomsky, do you?



alot of air and naval commanders in that list.

most of whom advocated policies such as continued fire bombing or naval blockcade that would of led to even more japanese civilian deaths than the A bomb caused.

unlike most of the anti A bomb posters here, they werent against the A bomb because they wanted to save japanese civilian lives. and due to inter service rivalry nearly all of them had an axe to grind on the subject of how to force japan to surrender.

heck most of the air commanders in that list already had alot more civilian blood on their hands than the A bomb caused. and most of those navy guys listed had no problem with starving millions of japanese civilians to death with their proposed naval blockcade.

i hate to say it but i think some of those listed felt the A bomb robbed them of their final glory.

Rattler68
03-28-2008, 07:04 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
alot of air and naval commanders in that list.

most of whom advocated policies such as continued fire bombing or naval blockcade that would of led to even more japanese civilian deaths than the A bomb caused.

unlike most of the anti A bomb posters here, they werent against the A bomb because they wanted to save japanese civilian lives. and due to inter service rivalry nearly all of them had an axe to grind on the subject of how to force japan to surrender.

heck most of the air commanders in that list already had alot more civilian blood on their hands than the A bomb caused. and most of those navy guys listed had no problem with starving millions of japanese civilians to death with their proposed naval blockcade.

i hate to say it but i think some of those listed felt the A bomb robbed them of their final glory.
Emann responded with primary evidence for his support, von Rat. All I see from your response is your opinion.

Von_Rat
03-28-2008, 08:15 PM
oh comon your telling me that you didnt know that lemay fire bombed japanese cities. and that your unaware of eakers and spaatz role in bombing german cities.

also byrd is quoted in that list as supporting a tight blockcade, he had to know millions would strave to death. nimitz is also qouted there as saying they had no food. so the stravation of civilians must of been ok.

other than hoover, almost no one in that list has clean hands (by the anti A bomb posters standards anyway), and you know it.

Outlaw---
03-28-2008, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
I really dislike this "how would you feel" arguement, since the answer is always cr@ppy, but this doesn't change the historical facts or the physical laws or anything.


So what is cr@ppy about the answer?

--Outlaw.

310th Falcon
03-29-2008, 03:00 AM
http://www.il-2.info/paintedpng.png
I know one thing...she <span class="ev_code_RED">HOT</span> Outlaw!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif



Best Regards

WN_Barbarossa
03-29-2008, 09:02 AM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
I really dislike this "how would you feel" arguement, since the answer is always cr@ppy, but this doesn't change the historical facts or the physical laws or anything.


So what is cr@ppy about the answer?

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I meant when someone ask this "how would you feel" question, he always expects the answer "I'd feel bad/cr@ppy", and then he falsely claims that his previous statements were right.

But once again, personal feelings don't change facts, physical and natural laws, history or anything.

DD_doubletap
03-29-2008, 09:12 AM
"Don't suppose they were all just reading too much Noam Chomsky, do you?"

Those other quotes are great and relevant to the topic, but just for the record, the Chomsky reference was not made regarding the atom bomb, so not sure why that is here.

In regards to those other quotes, and the thinking at the time, I offer this:



"Another myth that has attained wide attention is that at least several of Truman's top military advisers later informed him that using atomic bombs against Japan would be militarily unnecessary or immoral, or both. There is no persuasive evidence that any of them did so.
None of the Joint Chiefs ever made such a claim, although one inventive author has tried to make it appear that Leahy did by braiding together several unrelated passages from the admiral's memoirs. Actually, two days after Hiroshima, Truman told aides that Leahy had "said up to the last that it wouldn't go off."

**Neither MacArthur nor Nimitz ever communicated to Truman any change of mind about the need for invasion or expressed reservations about using the bombs**.

When first informed about their imminent use only days before Hiroshima, MacArthur responded with a lecture on the future of atomic warfare and even after Hiroshima strongly recommended that the invasion go forward.

***Nimitz, whose jurisdiction the atomic strikes would be launched, was notified in early 1945. "This sounds fine' " he told the courier, "but this is only February. CAN'T WE GET ONE SOONER?"****

****Nimitz later would join Air Force generals Carl D. Spaatz, Nathan Twining, and Curtis LeMay in recommending that a third bomb be dropped on Tokyo.****

Only Dwight D. Eisenhower later claimed to have remonstrated against the use of the bomb. In his Crusade in Europe, published in 1948, he wrote that when Secretary Stimson informed him during the Potsdam Conference of plans to use the bomb, he replied that he hoped "we would never have to use such a thing against any enemy' " because he did not want the United States to be the first to use such a weapon. He added, "My views were merely personal and immediate reactions; they were not based on any analysis of the subject." . . .

The best that can be said about Eisenhower's memory is that it had become flawed by the passage of time. Stimson was in Potsdam and Eisenhower in Frankfurt on July 16, when word came of the successful test. Aside from a brief conversation at a flag-raising ceremony in Berlin on July 20, the only other time they met was at Ike's headquarters on July 27. By then orders already had been sent to the Pacific to use the bombs if Japan had not yet surrendered. Notes made by one of Stimson's aides indicate that there was a discussion of atomic bombs, but there is no mention of any protest on Eisenhower's part. Even if there had been, two factors must be kept in mind. Eisenhower had commanded Allied forces in Europe, and his opinion on how close Japan was to surrender would have carried no special weight. More important, Stimson left for home immediately after the meeting and could not have personally conveyed Ike's sentiments to the President, who did not return to Washington until after Hiroshima."

-ROBERT JAMES MADDOX
"The Biggest Decision:Why We Had to Drop the Atomic Bomb"

http://www.americanheritage.com/articles/magazine/ah/1995/3/1995_3_70.shtml

Its a good article, and fair. It discusses the widely ranging estimates of casualties expected from various analysts at the time.

Emann,

One, I would have liked links to all these quotes so as to check their veracity. I do not doubt you, but I think the context in which many of them were made may be very important, and we all know that sometimes things on the net can be, er, misconstrued.

Two, assuming they are all accurate, we have at least some of those people quoted by Emann at the time failing to mention their reservations either to the President or to anyone at the time.

As has been mentioned before, hindsight is a wonderful thing; it always you to make decisions in a way that in the moment were not possible.

The question, well, one of the questions we were discussing, was whether the dropping of the atom bomb done just a show of force, or whether it was viewed as a quicker, less overall bloody way to end the war.

Truman was basing his decisions on what he knew at the time, on what his advisors knew, and the advice he was given.

If all of these people had misgivings about the bomb, none seem to have expressed them to Truman, and in fact, several gave at least some endorsement of its use:



"CAN'T WE GET ONE SOONER?"

"Nimitz later would join Air Force generals Carl D. Spaatz, Nathan Twining, and **Curtis LeMay** in RECOMMENDING THAT A THIRD BOMB BE DROPPED."


Also, if you read these quotes carefully (and this is why links to where they each can be found in the original context would be helpful), we don't know if they all are an endorsement of the anti-bomb faction, or merely viewing the events from a distance, after amassing information not available at the time.

To be fair to the people making the decisions at the time, you need to understand what they knew, or thought they knew.

The US started the development of the atom bomb, expending an enormous amount on its development which could have been put to other uses, because they were worried and believed the Germans were working on a bomb as well.

The Germans were, but as it turns out their progress was not nearly as advanced as first thought, and this only became evident over the course of the war.

Another thing: We are supposed to take these quotes from leading US military figures at the time as being dead on in their analysis of the situation. Now, we all know that even the most brilliant military mind is not always right.

Take these two quotes:



"The war would have been over in two weeks without the Russians entering and without the atomic bomb........the atomic bomb had nothing to do with the end of the war at all."
Major General Curtis E. LeMay, US Army Air Forces (at a press conference, September 1945).

"Russia's entry into the Japanese war was the decisive factor in speeding its end and would have been so even if no atomic bombs had been dropped..."
Major General Claire Chennault, founder of the Flying Tigers, and former US Army Air Forces commander in China.


So, which is it? Was Russia's entry into the war a non-factor in the quick end of the war, or was it the decisive factor in speeding its end?

My point is that if they can't agree on that, one has to wrong, and if one can be wrong on that, is it impossible both are in regards to the use of the bomb?

Some of the quotes I don't even know if they bolster the anti-nuke position.

This quote:


"....from the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out. The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell..."
Henry H. "Hap" Arnold, Commanding General of the US Army Air Forces.

Seems like it could bolster MY position, no? The Japanese felt obligated to defend their homeland and their Emperor to the last man, woman and child, and perhaps felt if they could kill enough Allied troops, they could at least force a settlement on some of their terms.

However, the existence of the atom bomb rendered all that pointless, as it appeared the Americans could annihilate Japan city by city at no cost to itself.

I assume everyone knows how important the concept of "face" is to the Japanese. It seems to be that Arnold's point may have been that the Japanese found a way to save "face" in surrendering they did not have before.

At the very least, I think it does not bolster this anti-nuke idea, and the ellipsis on both the front and back of the quote lead me to believe there was something more to it.

I mean, take the text as seen.

"The Japanese position was hopeless even before the first atomic bomb fell..."

True, but the issue was whether the Japanese knew AND accepted it. They apparently refused to take that view as the war progressed, even as the US and its Allies gained evermore strength in the Pacific. We are not arguing whether the atom bomb was neccessary to win the war for the Allies, but whether its use was justified to end it quickly thus preventing even more carnage.

Whether the Japanese position was hopeless was irrevelant if they chose to keep fighting anyway, which many indicators showed they would, from the increasingly suicidal defenses on islands close to Japan, to the Kamikaze attacks.

The German position once the Allied landings were secure on D-Day was also hopeless. Caught between the steamrolling Soviets and Anglo-American forces in Europe, Germany was done for. However, the Germans insisted on fighting for nearly an entire year, even battling the Societs in the streets of Berlin when there was NO reason to do so militarily.

The fact that the Germans were in a hopeless position from June '44 on did not prevent them from battling fiercely and inflicting massive casualties on the Allies, themselves, and the civilians populations.

So, hopeless position or not, the Japanese could still keep fighting ot the bitter end, which was the fear.

Now, the first part of the statement:

"....from the Japanese standpoint the atomic bomb was really a way out."

Again, does this not seem to actually indicate that the bomb gave Japan the ability to surrender rather than keep fighting? What else does "a way out" mean in the this sentence?

And if it gave a way out, if it allowed the Japanese to capitulate when their tendency was to NOT do so, wasn't the bomb then of some use in ending the war?

Anyway, Emann, I think the quotes were helpful, but for the reasons stated above and others, I remain unconvinced. I wish I could write more, but I have busy weekend. I could pick it up on Tuesday if anyone likes.

If I get the time, which I can't be certain I can, I'd like to try and find each of those quotes in their original source to get a better idea of what was intended.

Have a good weekend everyone. Cheers!

Outlaw---
03-29-2008, 09:20 AM
Originally posted by WN_Barbarossa:
I meant when someone ask this "how would you feel" question, he always expects the answer "I'd feel bad/cr@ppy", and then he falsely claims that his previous statements were right.

But once again, personal feelings don't change facts, physical and natural laws, history or anything.


My bad, I thought you were referring to the, "...what would you do...", questions that those throwing accustions of barbarism around won't answer.

--Outlaw.

Outlaw---
03-29-2008, 09:35 AM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
There is a difference between "killing", aka soldiers on a battlefield, and "murder", aka killing civillians.
BSing about "total war" does not count in here.
Killing civillians is murder, doesn't matter on which side.


Please explain the differences (morality wise, not stupid "war rules" wise) between a soldier and a civilian that makes it OK to kill the former but "murder" to kill the latter?



Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
So what? Were these guys soldiers?
They volunteered to go to war. Some of them were drafted - bad luck.
But then again who asked the german soldiers on eastern front about their feelings?
Being a soldier means fulfilling tasks and orders, not bragging about feelings.


Please explain why the death of a human is simply "bad luck" and open to be trivialized, as "so what", when he/she is forced into uniform and then killed by the enemy but it's a totally different story if they are killed by the enemy before that time? Also, at what time can we actually trivialize their death? By that I mean, should the enemy be required to wait for them to actually deploy or can they be killed starting from when they receive their draft notice? What about while in training? What about during the trip to the particular theater in question? Heaven forbid those human beings should become a worthless piece of garbage fit only to be slaughtered by the enemy and just plain, "bad luck", before it's morally acceptable.

--Outlaw.

Bremspropeller
03-29-2008, 11:42 AM
Please explain why you're such an arse.

blairgowrie
03-29-2008, 12:06 PM
Easy on Brems!

Rattler68
03-29-2008, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
oh comon your telling me that you didnt know that lemay fire bombed japanese cities. and that your unaware of eakers and spaatz role in bombing german cities.

also byrd is quoted in that list as supporting a tight blockcade, he had to know millions would strave to death. nimitz is also qouted there as saying they had no food. so the stravation of civilians must of been ok.

other than hoover, almost no one in that list has clean hands (by the anti A bomb posters standards anyway), and you know it.
No, I am not that naive. What I was getting at is that Emann supplied primary evidence of what those military leaders thought at the end of the war, while many others are simply giving opinions, although I'm sure that many of them are quite informed.

The thread topic was about the Enola Gay video, not just war or total war. I was simply pointing out the fact that Emann did a good job finding those sources and sharing them.

As for blockades, why is it that the US Navy would be held acountable for the deaths of 10's of thousands when there is a simple solution to the blockade - surrender? Is it the blockading navy's fault for misguided leadership? The US Navy (and the RN, and other Allied navies involved) were not responsible for feeding the Japanese in the first place, were they? Who is the real source of Japanese problems at that point, then?

Strange how people avoid the obvious answer and jump to the conclusion that it's the fault of those on the outside of the blockade that are responsible for deaths inside. I suppose that the police are responsible for the death of a civilian in a bank robbery when they cordon off the building?

Rattler68
03-29-2008, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by DD_doubletap:
Anyway, Emann, I think the quotes were helpful, but for the reasons stated above and others, I remain unconvinced. I wish I could write more, but I have busy weekend. I could pick it up on Tuesday if anyone likes.

If I get the time, which I can't be certain I can, I'd like to try and find each of those quotes in their original source to get a better idea of what was intended.

Have a good weekend everyone. Cheers!
I have to agree with you, Doubletap. What seems to have happened, from sources before and after the war, is that the American military leadership sided with the Joint Chiefs and scientists, and the Government leaders in accepting the use of the bomb for several reasons, but after the war they wanted to separate themselves from the decision to use it.

I'm not convinced that there was an imminent reason to use the bombs from a military standpoint, but the military in mid-1945 did not advocate to the leadership their reluctance to use it. It's interesting to see how people can flip-flop from one position to another so quickly.

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 01:01 PM
A naval blockade would not have resulted in the deaths of millions. If so, then that clearly contradicts the notion that the A-bombs brought about a surrender.

What would the Japanese leaders have seen to be worse;

1) The almost instant death of hundreds of thousands or;

2) the slow and painful deaths of millions.

Sorry, but the 'naval blockade' argument is highly flawed and at best invalid.

It's clear that the Japanese were looking for a surrender. They surely would have surrendered before millions would have died.

Fritz

Von_Rat
03-29-2008, 01:09 PM
Originally posted by Rattler68:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Von_Rat:
oh comon your telling me that you didnt know that lemay fire bombed japanese cities. and that your unaware of eakers and spaatz role in bombing german cities.

also byrd is quoted in that list as supporting a tight blockcade, he had to know millions would strave to death. nimitz is also qouted there as saying they had no food. so the stravation of civilians must of been ok.

other than hoover, almost no one in that list has clean hands (by the anti A bomb posters standards anyway), and you know it.
No, I am not that naive. What I was getting at is that Emann supplied primary evidence of what those military leaders thought at the end of the war, while many others are simply giving opinions, although I'm sure that many of them are quite informed.

The thread topic was about the Enola Gay video, not just war or total war. I was simply pointing out the fact that Emann did a good job finding those sources and sharing them.

As for blockades, why is it that the US Navy would be held acountable for the deaths of 10's of thousands when there is a simple solution to the blockade - surrender? Is it the blockading navy's fault for misguided leadership? The US Navy (and the RN, and other Allied navies involved) were not responsible for feeding the Japanese in the first place, were they? Who is the real source of Japanese problems at that point, then?

Strange how people avoid the obvious answer and jump to the conclusion that it's the fault of those on the outside of the blockade that are responsible for deaths inside. I suppose that the police are responsible for the death of a civilian in a bank robbery when they cordon off the building? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

oh i agree about blockcades. im just saying that it seems that from reading this thread causing any civilian deaths is a crime, and so if a tight blockcade was used instead of the A bomb, this thread would be about how criminal the usn and rn were to strave japanese civilians to death, even if it was their goverments fault for not surrendering.

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 01:13 PM
A naval blockade would have saved lives. The Japanese leadership had no choice in how many would be sacrificed before surrendering.

History has proven many times that a blockade works.

It isn't about civilian casualties of war. It's about the intentional targeting of civilians.

A naval blockade should have been the first choice.

Fritz

Von_Rat
03-29-2008, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
A naval blockade would not have resulted in the deaths of millions. If so, then that clearly contradicts the notion that the A-bombs brought about a surrender.

What would the Japanese leaders have seen to be worse;

1) The almost instant death of hundreds of thousands or;

2) the slow and painful deaths of millions.

Sorry, but the 'naval blockade' argument is highly flawed and at best invalid.

It's clear that the Japanese were looking for a surrender. They surely would have surrendered before millions would have died.

Fritz


they were looking for a way to surrender under their terms. eventually their terms became somthing the allies could accept.

i disagree about their surrendering quickly under blockcade. millions of deaths before they surrendered to blockcade is probaly wrong. but then again they were willing to accept millions of deaths in the event of an invasion werent they? even if it was only a few hundred thousand died it would be more than the A bomb.

and of course you realize the blockcade would of been accompanied by contuined fire bombing. blockcade was never a stand alone stratergy. and fire bombing caused way more deaths alone than the A bomb.

Von_Rat
03-29-2008, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
A naval blockade would have saved lives. The Japanese leadership had no choice in how many would be sacrificed before surrendering.

History has proven many times that a blockade works.

It isn't about civilian casualties of war. It's about the intentional targeting of civilians.

A naval blockade should have been the first choice.

Fritz

why would the leaders have no choice? they had plenty of choice in planning to resist invasion at the possiable cost of millions.


blockcades target civilians, who do you think was going to be doing most of the straving? the military? the leadership?

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 01:42 PM
Why would firebombing have been necessary?

While we know they were trying to negotiate the terms of a surrender, we have no idea what they were trying to achieve. Saying 'on their terms' is somewhat misleading and implies they were making unreasonable demands. For reference, they had the Treaty of Versailles (an abused unconditional surrender).

Does anyone know what they were asking for?

Without knowing what they were actually bargaining for, the argument of 'on their terms' is very weak at best.

Fritz

BTOG.46
03-29-2008, 01:51 PM
I'd always thought that they were negotiating surrender as long as the position of the Emperor was retained, but at the time, the allies insisted on an unconditional surrender.

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Von_Rat:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
A naval blockade would have saved lives. The Japanese leadership had no choice in how many would be sacrificed before surrendering.

History has proven many times that a blockade works.

It isn't about civilian casualties of war. It's about the intentional targeting of civilians.

A naval blockade should have been the first choice.

Fritz

why would the leaders have no choice? they had plenty of choice in planning to resist invasion at the possiable cost of millions.


blockcades target civilians, who do you think was going to be doing most of the straving? the military? the leadership? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The allies were the only ones that had a choice in the sacrifice of civilians. The allies had threaten the deaths of many but the Japanese leadership thought it was rhetoric. Lies are common in war.

Had the blockade been used, then the people would have begun suffering from starvation. At this point the Japanese leadership would have had more time to actually surrender. The A-bombs were over kill.

Many tend to think that the thousands that died in the A-bombings are the results of the Japanese leadership refusing to surrender. This is far from the truth since the Japanese had no chance to make a choice. Remember, the bomb was something they knew nothing about. They had only received threats that they had been receiving for years.

The second bomb was dropped before the Japanese leadership had time to accurately access the damage and devastation from the first. So, it's quite possible one would have been more than enough.

An invasion would have been silly. Even an outdated book like 'The Art of War' clearly spells that out in the same sort of situations.

A naval blockade would have been the best and most humane choice. That's not hindsight. It's simply logical.

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by BTOG.46:
I'd always thought that they were negotiating surrender as long as the position of the Emperor was retained, but at the time, the allies insisted on an unconditional surrender.

This was my thought too but I am not 100% sure.

Fritz

Outlaw---
03-29-2008, 03:05 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Please explain why you're such an arse.

That's the best you can do eh? You (and others) sling around the acusations and judgement real quick but when some hard questions get asked all you can do is hide your head in the sand.

Truly, I expected better. Of course, it's mostly my fault for expecting such from those who are almost certainly, happy to disappoint me, with respect to this topic.

--Outlaw.

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 03:11 PM
Who was hiding during the heat of discussion?

You seemed to have missed a few pages Outlaw.

Got some useful input since you are back again?

Fritz

Bewolf
03-29-2008, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Please explain why you're such an arse.

That's the best you can do eh? You (and others) sling around the acusations and judgement real quick but when some hard questions get asked all you can do is hide your head in the sand.

Truly, I expected better. Of course, it's mostly my fault for expecting such from those who are almost certainly, happy to disappoint me, with respect to this topic.

--Outlaw. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL! My fav entry to this thread yet. Please go on http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

joeap
03-29-2008, 03:29 PM
Personal insults, well this thread is truly over.

R_Target
03-29-2008, 03:58 PM
The Japanese surrender was accepted under the following provisions to the Potsdam declaration:


1. From the moment of surrender the authority of the Emperor and Japanese government...shall be subject to the

Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers who will take such steps as he deems proper to effectuate the surrender

terms.

2.The Emperor will authorize his government and Imperial General Headquarters to sign the surrender and shall

command all his armed forces to lay down their arms.

3.Immediately upon the surrender the Japanese government shall transport prisoners of war and interned civilians to

places of safety where they can be embarked in Allied transports.

4.The ultimate form of the government of Japan shall be established by the free will of the Japanese people.

5.Allied occupation forces will remain in Japan "until the purposes set forth in the Potsdam declaration are

achieved."

BTOG.46
03-29-2008, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by joeap:
Personal insults, well this thread is truly over.
Ad Hominem attacks in any debate, are regarded as a sign that the person using them has no valid counter to the argument

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 04:28 PM
Thanks Target.

I'm not sure, but that doesn't seem like the terms of an unconditional surrender, at least to me.

It seems rather conditional.

Do you happen to know what terms the Japanese were looking for before Hiroshima?

Fritz

R_Target
03-29-2008, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I'm not sure, but that doesn't seem like the terms of an unconditional surrender, at least to me.

It seems rather conditional.

I guess it's sort of a compromise. The subordination of governmental and Imperial authority to the occupation commander (MacArthur) was acceptable to the Allies; and my understanding is that the Emperor's submission was legitimized by making it analogous to previous Emperors being subject to the authority of the Shoguns.


Do you happen to know what terms the Japanese were looking for before Hiroshima?

As much territory as they could keep, self-disarmament, and no military occupation. Those are the major ones off the top of my head, and of course the preservation of the Imperial institution.

Pirschjaeger
03-29-2008, 04:56 PM
Interesting.

It seems, keyword 'seems', as though the conditions of the surrender were not so different from what they were previously asking for; the biggest difference being the preservation of the Imperial institution.

Is it safe to say that the Allies were almost as exhausted as the Japanese (morally)?

Fritz

Badsight-
03-29-2008, 05:44 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
The A-bombs were over kill.
disagree

even after the first one the military leaders in tokyo didnt believe the reports , they were totally stubborn

surrender wasnt an option for the hardcore members

both areas before the bombs were warned by letter drops

something the victims of the firebombing were not given

R_Target
03-29-2008, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Interesting.

It seems, keyword 'seems', as though the conditions of the surrender were not so different from what they were previously asking for; the biggest difference being the preservation of the Imperial institution.

I think the importance to the Japanese of the conquered territories on the Asian mainland shouldn't be underrated, and the Allied forces were determined to throw them out completely.


Is it safe to say that the Allies were almost as exhausted as the Japanese (morally)?

I don't know if I'm qualified to answer that question, but I'll relate what I've discovered in my reading. Despite the bombings and privations of the Japanese homefront, a completely lopsided picture of the war was presented to the Japanese people, namely that they were winning. All able-bodied males and females 16-60 were to be called up to train for the home defense forces. A massive army build-up on Kyushu began early in 1945, which by the time of the projected Allied invasion would meet them with a 1:1 ratio of troops. If you consider that previous Allied amphibious invasions with a much more favorable ratio were bloodbaths, you can get some idea what this invasion would be like. While there was no navy left to speak of, the Japanese had hoarded airplanes throughout the spring and summer of 1945, which in the end turned out to be almost twice the 5,000+ that Allied intelligence had estimated. Roughly half the planes were to be used by the Special Attack forces. It seems to me that they were quite willing to resist. It took Hirohito's historically unprecedented personal intervention to end it. Things might have gone differently if Hirohito had realized this earlier instead of stalling for time while seeking Soviet mediation for a negotiated peace. Army and Navy leaders both advised continuing the fight after Hiroshima.

As for the Allies, well, certainly they were war-weary, especially British and Commonwealth who had been at it for six years. Invasion planning was well underway though, with the war expected to last into 1946 with heavy casualties on all sides. The Japanese had fought the Allies with fanatical determination so far, and no less was expected once Japan itself was invaded.

This is from an essay titled "Ending the Pacific War" by Richard B. Frank, author of Guadalcanal:


Why did the Emperor decide to halt the war? He consistently gave three reasons when asked about his decision. One was his loss of faith in the Imperial Army and Ketsu-Go [invasion defense strategy]. A second was his deep fear that Japan's civil order would crack under blockade and bombardment, and possibly destroy the Imperial institution from within. He also specifically cited the atom bomb.

I would add that the Soviet entry into the Pacific War had more than a little to do with it also. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese soldiers and civilians never came back from Manchuria.

Outlaw---
03-29-2008, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Who was hiding during the heat of discussion?

You seemed to have missed a few pages Outlaw.

Got some useful input since you are back again?

Fritz

The only thing I've missed is an answer to my hypothetical questions by those slinging the acusations and judgement.

--Outlaw.

Pirschjaeger
03-30-2008, 03:18 AM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
The only thing I've missed is an answer to my hypothetical questions by those slinging the acusations and judgement.

--Outlaw.

Are you referring to this?


It's easy to sit in front of a computer in judgement while reading facts out of a book. Try placing yourself as a draftee in a muddy foxhole, sick with dysentery (and sitting in a puddle of the results), having just beaten back the third attack wave. Fortunately the malaria has taken a break for the last few hours so you can at least hold a weapon. Your only 3 friends in the world are dead next to you and you're down to 28 rounds for you M1. In the distance you can hear the enemy forming for the next attack. You've just got word that the 60mm mortar crews are completely out of everything (not even smoke rounds are left) and all of the four-deuces have been hit by artillery. The enemy is too close to you for naval support and all of the 105s were knocked out before they hit the beach. The bazooka and flame thrower teams are all dead and the officers all the way up to the Colonel have moved up to the front with their M1 carbines. The last time a Corsair flew over it dropped napalm on friendlies who had just taken a position back from the enemy.

Now imagine an official stepping up and asking if you would like vote to end the war tomorrow with a nuke or go on slogging it out for 6 more months. How would you vote? How would you want your mother/father/brother/sister/neighbor/etc. to vote? How would you EXPECT them to vote if they knew your situation.

Now imagine if you/they had been asked that question 4 WEEKS AGO.

We all know there wouldn't be a single NO vote and if any of you believes you'd vote no you're either a pathetic liar or you have a very bad imagination.

--Outlaw.

Is it possible that this question is irrelevant to the discussion? Why would you ask such a question? I can only assume that you believe the US had already lost the war but the Japanese hadn't figured that out yet. That's a far stretch of the imagination. It's not hypothetical but rather fantasy.

As for your responses, almost all of your posts are littered with attacks and insults against those who disagree with you.

"vote no you're either a pathetic liar or you have a very bad imagination."

People like Mao, Stalin, Hitler used the same language. What sort of response do you expect?

Now, are you going to contribute to the discussion in a positive manner or are you going to continue your suicide attacks?

Fritz

Pirschjaeger
03-30-2008, 03:29 AM
A lot of interesting info Target. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

So, there were basically three options;

1) invasion

2) blockade

3) A-bomb

I think it's safe to say that #1 was more or less out of the question, based on your last post.

#2 seems like it would have been the best option considering the circumstances.

Something that both sides of the discussion has failed to address was the psychological impact the Kamakazi pilots had on the Allies. Today we are so used to this concept that it has little effect outside media and political propaganda.

I've seen documentaries where people from the era, US soldiers for example, expressed shock at the concept of Kamakazi, 50-60 years after the event. I always found this rather strange but I guess suicide attacks were something new at that time, or at least relevant propaganda made it some new.

I wonder if this might have had a part in the decision.

Fritz

R_Target
03-30-2008, 10:04 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
So, there were basically three options;

1) invasion

2) blockade

3) A-bomb

I think it's safe to say that #1 was more or less out of the question, based on your last post.

#2 seems like it would have been the best option considering the circumstances.

I guess we can only speculate as to how long a blockade would take. With much of the Japanese population already malnourished, mass starvation would be a certainty. The two main transportation systems were coastal shipping and railroads. Shipping had already been decimated and the rail system was next to be destroyed if the atom bombs weren't used.

Under the scenario of a continuing blockade there was also the probability of a Soviet invasion of Hokkaido and an eventual Japanese partition along the lines of Korea and Germany.


Something that both sides of the discussion has failed to address was the psychological impact the Kamakazi pilots had on the Allies. Today we are so used to this concept that it has little effect outside media and political propaganda.

I've seen documentaries where people from the era, US soldiers for example, expressed shock at the concept of Kamakazi, 50-60 years after the event. I always found this rather strange but I guess suicide attacks were something new at that time, or at least relevant propaganda made it some new.

I wonder if this might have had a part in the decision.

Fritz

The Japanese approach was totally alien to the Allies, and the Special Attack units were the most extreme manifestation of their "no surrender" philosophy. The Kamikaze attacks off Okinawa were responsible for the largest losses in any battle in any war in the history of the USN. The attacks were expected to increase in intensity during the projected Kyushu invasion.

luftluuver
03-30-2008, 10:37 AM
Oh yes, be sure the slow lingering death by starvation is preferred. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif

The bleedin heart types need to read this link
http://www.mikekemble.com/ww2/downfall.html

Outlaw---
03-31-2008, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
To hell with all the perpetrators.


If this is not the ultimate insult to all who disagree with you then nothing is. Of course, I am assuming that the above also applies to any who would agree with the dropping. If that assumption is incorrect, my reaction was most certainly improper.

Nevertheless, you are right. I apologize unreservedly for the insulting text in my "what if" scenario and will be editing it right after this post.

I also apologize for some of my other overly excited replies, however, it extremely annoying when comments are taken out of context (note how specific my original post was) and/or redirected to totally unrelated topics simply for the sake of bashing the US (note that I do not imply that all posts meeting the "unrelated" criteria were simply for bashing effect but, it is very obvious that many were). Also, making sweeping generalizations about any group based on a single person's (or small group's) statements is ignorant and tantamount to racism.

Trivializing a soldier's life is hugely hypocritical and is an insult to anyone who is currently serving or has ever served in uniform and such posts are seething with hatred, no matter how well disguised or glazed over in passing.

It is time for some editing on my part and I hope for some honest responses. I will drop a few tidbits on my way out...




Sure. You must have cheered those jets plunging into WTC. After all those people contributed to the American economy thus they were directly responsible for the opression of muslim lands.





I will safe your entry for future reference when it comes to discussions with americans about ethics and war guilt.





So what? Were these guys soldiers?
They volunteered to go to war. Some of them were drafted - bad luck.





You folks are too stuck up to even recognize friends when you see them.

Bremspropeller
03-31-2008, 09:54 AM
Trivializing a soldier's life is hugely hypocritical and is an insult to anyone who is currently serving or has ever served in uniform and such posts are seething with hatred, no matter how well disguised or glazed over in passing.


Sorry to say, but I served.

Pirschjaeger
03-31-2008, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by Outlaw---:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
To hell with all the perpetrators.


If this is not the ultimate insult to all who disagree with you then nothing is. Of course, I am assuming that the above also applies to any who would agree with the dropping. If that assumption is incorrect, my reaction was most certainly improper.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I think I see the misunderstanding. From American Heritage:

Perpetrate:To be responsible for; commit: perpetrate a crime; perpetrate a practical joke.

This implies intent.

I used 'perpetrator' for the purpose of making clear that I wasn't blaming a nation. I actually had to think of which word would accurately express those responsible who knew what the effects were. They had intent. I can't identify all those who had the intent, henceforth 'perpetrators'.

Maybe you thought I meant 'Americans'. Actually, I still think the majority of Americans would not had agreed if they had had the chance to vote, previously knowing what the bombs' results would have been.

Anyway, it's not the first time misunderstandings happen in a/this forum. I've learnt to question the poster first.

No problem. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Fritz

Outlaw---
03-31-2008, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
I think I see the misunderstanding. From American Heritage:

Perpetrate:To be responsible for; commit: perpetrate a crime; perpetrate a practical joke.


I never misunderstood your intent and I never included you in the "American bashing" crowd. I do, however, see where my post made it appear so as yours was the only comment quoted by name.

With that in mind, it appears to me that I should be included in your damnation since, as my first post states, I would have made a similar decision given the circumstances. I am, therefore, officially insulted http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif . Note that I would quite probably make a similar decision today given similar circumstances (noting that such a situation is as close to being less than zero without being less than zero as is possible).

I find the discussion about the ultimate conclusion of WW-II confusing. It is obvious beyond a doubt that Japan lost the war when the first bombs were pickled over Pearl Harbor. The only thing in doubt was the timing. It is clear, however, that the bombs directly resulted in an immediate surrender (noting that "immediate" is a relative term that must take into account the speed of communications, the large scale of the damage compared to known technology, etc.) that most likely would have occurred weeks later (and arguably more) in the absence of the nuclear missions. This fact alone is justification enough for me that the targets were of military significance.

Now, whether the unknown timing and the ensuing loss of life on both sides outweighs the known loss of life due to the bombs is a matter of opinion and conjecture. This is really a non-issue for me since I do not attempt to make a moral distinction between civilian and soldier. As I have stated previously, to do so is an abomination of morals IMO. Also, wrong or right (and I could care less which side of that fence anyone else falls on), I will always assign a greater importance to the lives of my people than the lives of those who have attacked me. The blood of their innocents is on their hands, not mine.

--Outlaw.

Pirschjaeger
03-31-2008, 01:26 PM
Fair enough. We don't have to agree to get along and it is the different opinions that keeps me coming to this forum.

I wonder if the politicians should use a forum rather than weapons.

Ooops, I forgot, literacy is a prerequisite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

Fritz

Outlaw---
03-31-2008, 01:36 PM
Originally posted by Bremspropeller:
Sorry to say, but I served.

If your service qualifies you to declare all soldier's lives as trivial then my having never served qualifies me to trivialize those who haven't. I therefore do so and ask, "so what?", to any outrage expressed on their behalf.

--Outlaw.

Outlaw---
03-31-2008, 01:40 PM
Originally posted by Pirschjaeger:
Ooops, I forgot, literacy is a prerequisite. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif


No way to argue with that. I consider us lucky to be getting a full compliment of candidates that can stand upright. Even with that bit of luck we are still reduced to picking between the evil of two lessers.

--Outlaw.