PDA

View Full Version : Mustangs over Japan.



GBrutus
08-16-2006, 12:47 PM
Thought this might be of interest to some. Sorry if it's been posted before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdAtIRef7I0&mode=related&search=

Taylortony
08-16-2006, 06:18 PM
New to me and really enjoyable to watch.......thank you http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

martian04
08-16-2006, 06:55 PM
Is that genuine footage ? enjoyable either way ..thanks http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

zero85ZEN
08-16-2006, 07:38 PM
Great vid. I'd say those .50's look like they pack plenty of punch in RL.

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

Enforcer572005
08-16-2006, 08:13 PM
God I love Kodachrome gun cam footage. Of course 50s are pretty effective....they can take out Tiger tanks y'know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/metal.gif

(Runs ducking from room, dodging the many banana peels thrown in front of him). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

FlixFlix
08-17-2006, 03:22 AM
Tiger tanks, certainly.

More important: fishermen. unprotected fishermen as seen in the flick.
Such heroes. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/shady.gif

hotspace
08-17-2006, 05:30 AM
That is some great footage there http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif

ElAurens
08-17-2006, 05:40 AM
Originally posted by FlixFlix:
More important: fishermen. unprotected fishermen as seen in the flick.
Such heroes.

Food is a strategic resource my friend. It's production is a viable target.

War isn't a game.

JG53Frankyboy
08-17-2006, 06:01 AM
and here is something to read

http://506thfightergroup.org/index.asp

JtD
08-17-2006, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FlixFlix:
More important: fishermen. unprotected fishermen as seen in the flick.
Such heroes.

Food is a strategic resource my friend. It's production is a viable target.

War isn't a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese did not eat people.

ElAurens
08-17-2006, 10:57 AM
But they did (and still do) eat lots of fish. It is a staple of the Japanese diet. Disrupting fishing is totally understandable, like I said, it is a valid target. Don't be naieve.

StG2_Schlachter
08-17-2006, 12:57 PM
Lol com one ElAurens. That is so cheesy. Disrupting the food supply of a nation is not a reason for shooting up old fishermen on a beach.

TheBandit_76
08-17-2006, 01:13 PM
Nice to see a proper, stable flying P51 with working guns. Perhaps another SIM will choose to realistically portray the P51.

AndyHigh
08-17-2006, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
But they did (and still do) eat lots of fish. It is a staple of the Japanese diet. Disrupting fishing is totally understandable, like I said, it is a valid target. Don't be naieve.

In that case there must be nothing wrong if your enemy uses the same tactics then, am I wrong? I mean it also must be totally understandable when Germany or Japan or whatever did the same thing?

berg417448
08-17-2006, 01:18 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
But they did (and still do) eat lots of fish. It is a staple of the Japanese diet. Disrupting fishing is totally understandable, like I said, it is a valid target. Don't be naieve.

In that case there must be nothing wrong if your enemy uses the same tactics then, am I wrong? I mean it also must be totally understandable when Germany or Japan or whatever did the same thing? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


It was done by some pilots on all sides and no one enjoyed being on the receiving end of it.

rnzoli
08-17-2006, 01:52 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Nice to see a proper, stable flying P51 with working guns. Perhaps another SIM will choose to realistically portray the P51.

How about the circle of impact patterns, while attacking a railyard? What causes that instability? Looks exactly how I strafe ground targets in the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

rnzoli
08-17-2006, 01:54 PM
It was done by some pilots on all sides and no one enjoyed being on the receiving end of it.
But if you did that on the winning side, you'll be exused, but if you did that on the losing side, well, tough luck, you will be executed for war crimes.

LEBillfish
08-17-2006, 01:59 PM
As the thread quickly gets stupid perhaps a reminder..........

There is really no reason to "argue" about any activity 60+ years past amongst us here....What was done was done, and right or wrong, whatever the reasons or justifications then we can only speculate at now. I don't know of a single person here that can speak from direct experience as to WWII........

Can you say this is why you "think" "X" was done? Sure, yet most often is just a guess without credible documentation.

Can you say you "think" something was right or wrong? Sure, yet will simply be "uneducated opinion" not having been there.

Can you say you "would never" do this or that? Sure, yet never is a long time, and funny how nevers turn into, "well excepts".

Point?.......Stating your "opinion" is one thing, slamming another for their opinion or guess simply wrong and kills credibility. Stick to your own opinions and discuss others. Yet slamming another says nothing.

IMLTHO.........(In My Less Then Humble Opinion)

rnzoli
08-17-2006, 02:06 PM
did I slam someone? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

R_Target
08-17-2006, 02:15 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
How about the circle of impact patterns, while attacking a railyard? What causes that instability? Looks exactly how I strafe ground targets in the game http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

I saw a show a while back where they were analyzing some of these strafing films in slow-motion. The two guys talking about it were saying the pilots would try to stitch a pattern around ground targets for maximum damage.

Whether that's what they're doing, or the guy just can't shoot, I can't say.

JtD
08-17-2006, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
But they did (and still do) eat lots of fish. It is a staple of the Japanese diet. Disrupting fishing is totally understandable, like I said, it is a valid target. Don't be naieve.

They were targeting two fishermen on the beach. That's not a valid target.

It's one thing to follow an order to anonymously drop bombs from a few km alt to kill as many civilians as possible, but pointing a fighters crosshair over civilians running from your airplane is a different thing. That's an indivdual decision. About as ok as burning down a village and shooting everyone who runs from it. Pregnant women make good targets, big, slow, and count double. http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/wchand.gif

berg417448
08-17-2006, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was done by some pilots on all sides and no one enjoyed being on the receiving end of it.
But if you did that on the winning side, you'll be exused, but if you did that on the losing side, well, tough luck, you will be executed for war crimes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never read of a pilot being executed after the war for strafing. Are you familiar with such a case? Would make interesting reading.

KIMURA
08-17-2006, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
But they did (and still do) eat lots of fish. It is a staple of the Japanese diet. Disrupting fishing is totally understandable, like I said, it is a valid target. Don't be naieve.

It's absolute no value target EIAurens. Intentionally attacks on civilians doing civil works is simply a war crime regardless the nation which doing so. Otherwise go to the next recruiting office and ask the guys there. They'll surely know that. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/crackwhip.gif

edit: I prayed for the running fisher men for luck to the reach shelter.

TheBandit_76
08-17-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
some blather

They're called rudder pedals genius, and the pilot is stomping the pizz out of them.

Refer to the photo below, and if you need me to I will circle them for you ace.

http://fighter-collection.com/newsimg/img/p-51c_cockpit_01.jpg

rnzoli
08-17-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
I've never read of a pilot being executed after the war for strafing. Are you familiar with such a case? Would make interesting reading.

No, I was exaggarating. I consider it rather hard to find a practical way of proving such a case (time, date, victims, pilot etc.) There was no CNN in WW2...

TheBandit_76
08-17-2006, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
But they did (and still do) eat lots of fish. It is a staple of the Japanese diet. Disrupting fishing is totally understandable, like I said, it is a valid target. Don't be naieve.

They were targeting two fishermen on the beach. That's not a valid target.

It's one thing to follow an order to anonymously drop bombs from a few km alt to kill as many civilians as possible, but pointing a fighters crosshair over civilians running from your airplane is a different thing. That's an indivdual decision. About as ok as burning down a village and shooting everyone who runs from it. Pregnant women make good targets, big, slow, and count double. http://www.ubisoft.de/smileys/wchand.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Oooh yeah, and I'm going to ignore those horse-drawn wagons on European roads bringing up food and ammunition so they can kill American soldiers.

BS, I'm blowing the shiznit outta them.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

http://www.web-birds.com/14th/23/03%20-%20LtCol%20Chuck%20Older,%20Deputy%20Commander,%20 23rd%20FG.jpg

rnzoli
08-17-2006, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
the pilot is stomping the pizz out of them.


Tell me
1. How do you know?
2. If true, is he stepping on the rudder to miss deliberatly in his uber-stable P51?

KIMURA
08-17-2006, 02:52 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
Oooh yeah, and I'm going to ignore those horse-drawn wagons on European roads bringing up food and ammunition so they can kill American soldiers.
BS, I'm blowing the shiznit outta them.


The only goal of such foolish statement is to provocate - isn't it? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif It can only been posted by people who forgot how war hurts, how the experience is running for shelter from fighter-bombers with your son at your left hand and a carry a suitcase in the right hand . http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

LEBillfish
08-17-2006, 02:59 PM
As to the footage............First off as we all can tell it was "hollywooded up" to obviously be used in newsreals or whatever. Besides that I have seen the exact same footage applied to P47's, Hellcats, and so on. At this point then though good footage to be sure, It's hard to say where it came from or what plane was actually flying.

As to shooting at "fisherman"........Sorry to say yet every army that has fought every war has for one reason or another targeted civilians. Why no outcry about the train being strafed in that women and children were known to be being hustled out of the major cities by train to the country?

Because the logic then "Well gee, trains can carry cargo too!"...Kewl, so can boats.

What if a civilian works in a factory being bombed?....What about those pressed to repair airfields...Or those just hauling cargo...Or supplying food. Lastly what of the civilian who hides enemy soldiers in their homes?

Sorry......It all helps the war effort and as long as there is war civilians will be targeted by BOTH sides.

Saw a show on the retaking of Manila Philippines...Death toll?
1,000 U.S. (though may have been more can't recall number yet 2,000 max)
16,000 Japanese
100,000 Philippino's(sp?)

So you tell me, are they targeted or what?

Yes, it's wrong. Yes, it's right if a commander protecting your troops.........

Yet in the end as I have said over and over on these forums......Only innocent civilians are unjustly killed in war. Sad fact, only one way around it.......No war. Pity there is rarely that choice.

JtD
08-17-2006, 03:05 PM
There is always the choice, but admittedly war can sometimes appear to be the lesser evil.

Rjel
08-17-2006, 03:07 PM
I've watched the clip mentioned dozens of times on DVD. Much cleaner picture obviously. It comes from a wartime documentary called "The Last Bomb". After watching it over and over, I'm still not convinced those are fisherman. I think it would as easy to see them as soldiers carrying rifles. Japanese WWII rifles were rather large. Add that to flying a high speed aircraft and I can see how a pilot could make a mistake.
Some of you a pretty quick to judge, especially when the very acts you feel are war crimes, had been perpitrated many, many times before by the Axis countries while they were raping most of Europe and the Far East

AndyHigh
08-17-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Yes, it's wrong. Yes, it's right if a commander protecting your troops.........


That's quite vague statement and may usually be used just to defend decisions of a general when something went wrong and civilians were slaughtered, or maybe it was just calculated to be so and civilian deaths were considered unimportant compared to own losses.

History knows there's even been many wars started under the name of "protection". Leaders of nation A preaches it has right to invade nation B because they want to "protect" themselves of a threat nation B poses, valid or not.

han freak solo
08-17-2006, 03:22 PM
Originally posted by berg417448:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">It was done by some pilots on all sides and no one enjoyed being on the receiving end of it.
But if you did that on the winning side, you'll be exused, but if you did that on the losing side, well, tough luck, you will be executed for war crimes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I've never read of a pilot being executed after the war for strafing. Are you familiar with such a case? Would make interesting reading. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Check out Blonde Knight of Germany (http://books.google.com/books?vid=ISBN0830681892&id=4LrKkp7ynFcC&pg=PP1&lpg=PR1&ots=xqC-Dh_wD1&dq=Blond+Knight+of+Germany&sig=KtwwM1NjCpS7H7nRhtHqI4O8Bpo)

My memory is foggy on the exact details since I read this book almost two years ago. When the Soviets took Hartmann prisoner, they tried to charge him with some offense related to the innocent Soviet civilians he had killed. The Soviets reasoned that for all the ammo he fired in Soviet airspace, only a certain amount hit military targets. The remainder obviously fell to the earth and contributed to Soviet civilian deaths, said the Soviets. Hartmann wasn't executed, but they tried to use these charges against him while he was imprisoned.

Treetop64
08-17-2006, 03:26 PM
"How do we know they were fishermen" is what I'm wondering. There's no way in hell any of us know who or what they were.

Bad things happen in war. People die. Many people who aren't directly involved in the fighting die. It's sad, it's unfortunate, but it happens. As long as there are wars (and there will always be wars) this will be the case. Get used to that idea, people.

Also, there is German prapoganda footage of Stukas strafing a column of horses and people on a mountain trail (the footage is from a propoganda reel showcasing the Stuka, complete with a Stuka theme sung throughout). Are we going to make ourselves feel all self-righteous by condemning that, too? There are countless examples from all sides of similar events.

It's war, folks, not peaches and cream.

It's always those who never took part in a shooting war that speak the loudest about what one should and shouldn't do when they're either being shot at or required to kill others, or both...

AndyHigh
08-17-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
Bomb". After watching it over and over, I'm still not convinced those are fisherman. I think it would as easy to see them as soldiers carrying rifles. Japanese WWII rifles were

The commentary mentions "fishermen" separately (if I got it right) and there's what seems to be small wooden fishing ships on harbour.

While some may've been pretty quick to judge, some others have been quick to defend.

So am I right these actions are allowed for soldiers of certain countries and not for some others? Or shoud I put it this way: there can't be war crimes committed by a winning nation?

TheBandit_76
08-17-2006, 03:38 PM
Originally posted by rnzoli:
...

If you need me to explain what rudder pedals do, then maybe you should give Duke Nukem another shot.

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

Rjel
08-17-2006, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Rjel:
Bomb". After watching it over and over, I'm still not convinced those are fisherman. I think it would as easy to see them as soldiers carrying rifles. Japanese WWII rifles were

The commentary mentions "fishermen" separately (if I got it right) and there's what seems to be small wooden fishing ships on harbour.

While some may've been pretty quick to judge, some others have been quick to defend.

So am I right these actions are allowed for soldiers of certain countries and not for some others? Or shoud I put it this way: there can't be war crimes committed by a winning nation? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


While the narration might describe them as fisherman, that can't and doesn't mean the pilot saw them as that. Too quick to defend? Perhaps. But my point remains the same. If indeed those where civilians, after nearly six years of war, nobody cared anymore.

AndyHigh
08-17-2006, 03:59 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
While the narration might describe them as fisherman, that can't and doesn't mean the pilot saw them as that. Too quick to defend? Perhaps. But my point remains the same. If indeed those where civilians, after nearly six years of war, nobody cared anymore.

Ok, but does your point remain the same for current conflicts? A pilot has no responsibility because his plane is so fast (way faster than 60 years ago), and he can't identify the target correctly, but decides to push the trigger anyway.

If you hunt animals in the woods, you should shoot only when you've identified the beast or otherwise you could accidently make a hole in your friend's head who's making noises behind a bush.

War is a different game it seems, or at least the rules are different for each participant.

rnzoli
08-17-2006, 04:42 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
...

If you need me to explain what rudder pedals do, then maybe you should give Duke Nukem another shot.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No. In fact you need to explain how you can be certain that he was using the rudder (instead of being out of trim), and if he indeed used it, why he missed his target in his uber-stable P51.

Alternatively, please continue dreaming about an all-American flight sim correctly representing a Mustang-on-rails flight model.

han freak solo
08-17-2006, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by TheBandit_76:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by rnzoli:
...

If you need me to explain what rudder pedals do, then maybe you should give Duke Nukem another shot.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/sleepzzz.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

D@MN!!!! Trash talkin' after 23 posts. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/59.gif

zero85ZEN
08-17-2006, 05:50 PM
I'm already in. But I'm IABTL (In AGAIN Before Thread Lock)!

You guys are getting nasty with each other....

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/disagree.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/354.gif

Rjel
08-17-2006, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Ok, but does your point remain the same for current conflicts? A pilot has no responsibility because his plane is so fast (way faster than 60 years ago), and he can't identify the target correctly, but decides to push the trigger anyway.

If you hunt animals in the woods, you should shoot only when you've identified the beast or otherwise you could accidently make a hole in your friend's head who's making noises behind a bush.

War is a different game it seems, or at least the rules are different for each participant.

I don't want to get drawn into a current world discussion as it has little to do with this thread or this board. I will say tho that in WWII, those pilots were sent out to targets hundreds of miles from their bases with intelligence that was hours, days and maybe even weeks old. No real time GPS or sattelite imagery. Not even the ability to radio for instruction from higher command. Just on the spot decision making.

As far as your comments about knowing your target, as a hunter I can say it must be infinately easier to identify an animal target from another human being as opposed to being able to tell if a couple of figures running from hundreds of feet away are combatants or a simply civilian fishermen.

LEBillfish
08-17-2006, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by LEBillfish:
Yes, it's wrong. Yes, it's right if a commander protecting your troops.........


That's quite vague statement and may usually be used just to defend decisions of a general when something went wrong and civilians were slaughtered, or maybe it was just calculated to be so and civilian deaths were considered unimportant compared to own losses.

History knows there's even been many wars started under the name of "protection". Leaders of nation A preaches it has right to invade nation B because they want to "protect" themselves of a threat nation B poses, valid or not. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No, it's not really vague nor meant to show that it is right or wrong. ALWAYS I will side with the civilian as soldiers from each side made their choice to join up, even to the degree of not refusing and fighting their own govenment if they think it is wrong....

What I'm trying to explain is that it IS wrong.....Yet to an individual, be it a single soldier, a commander of many, to a leader of a nation such wrong may "FEEL" and be with all confidence "BELIEVED" to be justified.....

Ex.
Private Bobs two best friends on either side of him are just killed. He knows the home enemy troops are in still holds the family there, and how many of his friends will die to take it.....Rage, vengence, and a desire to protect his friends easily justifies "to him" firing the rocket....Boom it's done.

Now imagine when it's 100 men under your care....or 1,000, or 100,000, or a nation......

Yes it IS wrong. Yet when faced with the decision people mostly will err on the side of their own. Just human nature that till faced with it personally no one else can judge unless glaring.

So again.....Though killing a civilian is wrong, those there almost always can justify it. Personally I know of not one war to minor conflict where both sides did not walk in shades of gray.........Pity.

berg417448
08-17-2006, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:


If you hunt animals in the woods, you should shoot only when you've identified the beast or otherwise you could accidently make a hole in your friend's head who's making noises behind a bush.

War is a different game it seems, or at least the
rules are different for each participant.

When you consider that between 10% and 20% of all casualties in WWII were caused by "friendly fire" there were a whole lot of holes made in friends heads.

ElAurens
08-17-2006, 06:14 PM
I'm wondering how different the comments would be if the aircraft in that film were RAF Spitfires instead of P51s?

War of The Running Dogs ring a bell?

SkyChimp
08-17-2006, 06:46 PM
And out come the moralists... There is no way anyone knows if those were fishermen, or if they were sampan crewmen that transported war supplies, served as pickets, or gunboat crewmen. The sampan was the primary means of transporting war supplies by water in Japan near the end of WWII. They were hunted by planes, ships and submarines. They were absolutely valid targets, as were their crews.

fordfan25
08-17-2006, 07:08 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FlixFlix:
More important: fishermen. unprotected fishermen as seen in the flick.
Such heroes.

Food is a strategic resource my friend. It's production is a viable target.

War isn't a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese did not eat people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>no thay eat fish. you know the things fishermen catch drrrrr

fordfan25
08-17-2006, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Lol com one ElAurens. That is so cheesy. Disrupting the food supply of a nation is not a reason for shooting up old fishermen on a beach. but sinking large convy ships full of sailors is?

SkyChimp
08-17-2006, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
The Japanese did not eat people.


"Eyewitness account by second generation Japanese born in Singapore, of the torture and murder of a captured American airman by a Colonel Tsuji and subsequent cannibalism of his preserved body parts.'

http://www.archives.gov/iwg/reports/japanese-interim-report-march-2002-1.html

darkhorizon11
08-17-2006, 08:45 PM
Very cool clip.

Some of the video was generic WWII stuff. Some was legit for Japan, you could see the markings... A good example was the train strafing, the second one in of the locamotive blowing a towr of steam and the plane veering to the left of the steam stream I've seen in a clip describing P-47s over Europe.

But alot of the others were definitely legit, and I've never seen before, in two of the airfield clips you can see Fiat BR.20s which were used by Japanese and you can clearly see the red meatball on one...



About the stuff at the end... I didn't feel comfortable cheering it on. But in 2006 its easy to sit back and in your easy chair and think ugh... thats wrong. But take yourself back to the 1940s and PH and everything else that happened no one else in the theater would feel any shred of guilt. Thats why it seems so non-challant.

Still though, in this day and age or 1945 I still feel it isn't right. I hate getting into this debate because then everyone responds saying OMG but look at all the terrible things the Japanese did! The truth is its prejudice and stereotypical. It comes down to the individual person not which side he/she fought on. There were plenty of able and moral Japanese soldiers that never commited any war crime, yet their a target? Same goes for Americans, what if the war went the other way and those were American sailors, soldiers, fishermen whatever running for cover? If that was a Japanese clip of them strafing American soldiers in New Guinea it would be a response of hatred anger and those evil *** bastards, yet cause its Japanese soldiers stars and stripes red white and blue kill stuff a flag in my @ss kill the SOBs!

Even if you really try to count the terrible atrocities the Japanese commited somewhere down in Singapore, those are the actions of one SICK individual. How is a guy running across the beach on one of the home islands is a target because what one person did thousands of miles away?

Its just not necessary. Its not that I'm saying I particularly love the Japanese either their ideologies, beliefs, and propaganda during the war were wayyyy more flawed than ours ever. But it stil doesn't justify the strafing.

Take the opposing viewpoint, when Japan attacked Pearl did they carpet bomb Honululu killing hundreds of American civilians? Nope although there was unavoidable collateral damage (a lot due to friendly American artillery fire actualy) and civilian casulties that was not their intention at all. It was strictly a military objective, they went straight for the battleships and the port.

Yet our response in 1945? We indiscrimitately carpet bomb Japanese major cities killing citizen and civilian alike. I believe one raid on Tokyo in April of 45 annihilated 16 square miles and killed upwards of 300,000 people. How many innocent people that did absolutely nothing wrong were killed in that raid?

And to think we consider the losses from 9/11 an unparalleled tragedy, thats 100 9/11's from one night and the follwing few weeks...

BUT, to throw morals aside for a sec here's how I justify its NOT right from a non-political, but combat soldier stand point through the rules of war...

1. I'm not a soldier myself but I know the first thing they teach when your in the combat enviroment is to identify targets, friend from foe.

2. Next, discriminate between targets/hostiles and civilians. Your right Skychimp they could be gunboat crewman, swampons? (educate me SC I don't know what thsoe are?), fisherman, or drunk idiots. And thats why we shouldn't shoot, we don't know who they are, what if they are escaping POWS?!?! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-surprised.gif

Theres too much up in the air. The pilot should get in close enough to see what they're doing, are they running towards and unmanned AAA gun or off for cover?

The case is clear cut for me in my opinion and if that was today in say? Iraq, that pilot would be in deep ****.

ElAurens
08-17-2006, 09:11 PM
And it is why you would be dead on your first sortie.

War is not a game played out on some football pitch with referees and good sportsmanship, or on a monitor with "no vulching" rules.

Enjoy your little revisionist revery here, I'm out.

darkhorizon11
08-17-2006, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by ElAurens:
And it is why you would be dead on your first sortie.

War is not a game played out on some football pitch with referees and good sportsmanship, or on a monitor with "no vulching" rules.

Enjoy your little revisionist revery here, I'm out.

Puhlleeaseeeee, gimme a break Maverick. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/88.gif

One of my homeboys fly's Hornets for the US Navy and he basically told me what I wrote above about the rules of engagment just after his first tour over Iraq.

That F*CK IT ALL AND KILL EVERYTHING THAT MOVES WITH EXTREME PREJUDICE ATTITUDE will get you killed more than it will save you friend.

Use your head.

han freak solo
08-17-2006, 09:48 PM
I believe this belongs here now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif


Originally posted by hughugo37:
Those people fought for a repressive, completely unfree, undemocratic, genocidal, evil government and as such deserved to be killed. There I said it.

P.S. This is an example of the moral relativism that is destroying Europe. You have completely lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. If you can't even judge those who fought against democracy in the past, how can you be trusted to defend it today. When Islamic extremism comes to your doorstep will you say, "Oh that suicide bomber was just bravely fighting for what he believed in. Oh well. I guess we just have to live under Shariah law now."

han freak solo
08-17-2006, 09:53 PM
Originally posted by GBrutus:
Thought this might be of interest to some. Sorry if it's been posted before.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MdAtIRef7I0&mode=related&search=

Hollywood or not, I love the sounds. Thanks for the link. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif

darkhorizon11
08-17-2006, 10:17 PM
Originally posted by han freak solo:
I believe this belongs here now. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/784.gif

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by hughugo37:
Those people fought for a repressive, completely unfree, undemocratic, genocidal, evil government and as such deserved to be killed. There I said it.

P.S. This is an example of the moral relativism that is destroying Europe. You have completely lost the ability to distinguish right from wrong. If you can't even judge those who fought against democracy in the past, how can you be trusted to defend it today. When Islamic extremism comes to your doorstep will you say, "Oh that suicide bomber was just bravely fighting for what he believed in. Oh well. I guess we just have to live under Shariah law now." </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I understand what your saying but your arguing a different argument. Your saying I and whoever agrees with me is too nice or peaceful to kill if I had too. Which is wrong, all I'm stressing is control.

If I'm in battle and I see a hostile with intent I'm definitely going to kill him hands down. If those men were firing back they would definetely be targets, my point is just that you shouldn't kill everything that moves until you know what it is.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-17-2006, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by StG2_Schlachter:
Lol com one ElAurens. That is so cheesy. Disrupting the food supply of a nation is not a reason for shooting up old fishermen on a beach.

You are indeed Naive.

Look up the meaning of "total war".

Thus, definitions do vary, but most hold to the spirit offered by Roger Chickering's definition Total War: The German and American Experiences, 1871-1914: "Total war is distinguished by its unprecedented intensity and extent. Theaters of operations span the globe; the scale of battle is practically limitless. Total war is fought heedless of the restraints of morality, custom, or international law, for the combatants are inspired by hatreds born of modern ideologies. Total war requires the mobilization not only of armed forces but also of whole populations. The most crucial determinant of total war is the widespread, indiscriminate, and deliberate inclusion of civilians as legitimate military targets."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war

Liberalism doesn't win wars. Ruthlessness does.

You are judging the history of a time you do not have the faintest clue of. What happened, happened. You don't have any first-person, true understanding of the times, nor does anyone else alive and under the age of 80 in this world of ours today, that is largely free of fascism and national socialism.. thanks due in part to such morally distasteful events by the allies, that some of you so indignantly and self-righteously object to. It's judgemental revisionism of history at it's worst.

If you have relatives that were in the war.. on either side - you've insulted their cause, and their memories by calling their actions into question. Just shut up, and be thankful that things didn't turn out for the worse.

LEBillfish
08-17-2006, 11:05 PM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
As the thread quickly gets stupid perhaps a reminder..........

There is really no reason to "argue" about any activity 60+ years past amongst us here....What was done was done, and right or wrong, whatever the reasons or justifications then we can only speculate at now. I don't know of a single person here that can speak from direct experience as to WWII........

Can you say this is why you "think" "X" was done? Sure, yet most often is just a guess without credible documentation.

Can you say you "think" something was right or wrong? Sure, yet will simply be "uneducated opinion" not having been there.

Can you say you "would never" do this or that? Sure, yet never is a long time, and funny how nevers turn into, "well excepts".

Point?.......Stating your "opinion" is one thing, slamming another for their opinion or guess simply wrong and kills credibility. Stick to your own opinions and discuss others. Yet slamming another says nothing.

IMLTHO.........(In My Less Then Humble Opinion)

Viper2005_
08-18-2006, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
The case is clear cut for me in my opinion and if that was today in say? Iraq, that pilot would be in deep ****.

Nah, he'd just post it on the internet...

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-5978347277237733450&q=gun+camera

This footage really sends a shiver down my spine because a clear decision is taken to attack a man who is obviously badly wounded and can barely crawl. I can't see him posing a threat to anybody. So why attack him with 30 mm cannon fire?

Most armies take pains to care for their wounded, and the reality is that this often costs them more than it is worth in terms of manpower; basically it's only worth doing because it's good for morale in the longer term "they'll look after me."...

Killing the enemy's wounded is therefore counterproductive because it frees him from the burden of caring from said wounded without any political consequences; he can hardly be blamed for the failure of his enemy to show mercy.

As such, I find the actions displayed in this video both distasteful and of questionable military utility.

But that's what happens when you send kids off to war. There's a lot more footage out there if you care to look for it...

CHDT
08-18-2006, 01:50 AM
Very strange arguments from the "fishers" shooters.

Basically, they are saying that you can do war-crimes to win against nations making war-crimes.

Just imagine if a Japanese aircraft launched from a submarine had straffed in the same way some civil fishers on a Los Angeles beach, all the "fishers" shooters here would scream "bastards" and so on.

But this bastardly attitude was unhappily rather common. For instance, Chuck Yeager said this about his practice of shooting civil farmers in the fields: "After all, the farmer on his potato patch was feeding German soldiers."

For me, by saying this, he is exactly on the same very low moral level like a Stuka pilot straffing a column of unarmed civil refugees.

"after all, these civil refugees will soon work again for the war effort of the enemy" could say the Stuka pilot.

Frankly, there's no moral difference between shooting a civil fisher or a civil farmer from an airplane and killing all the farmers in a village in some kind of military pogrom. Just the number of the victims is different.

Without forgetting that the winner of a war can easily control what is necessary for him to look morally clean.

Just look at this for instance:

http://www.polskieradio.pl/polonia/article.asp?tId=40422&j=2

CHDT
08-18-2006, 02:06 AM
Frankly, I can't imagine Peter Townsend or Antoine de Saint-Exupéry (1) straffing and killing unarmed civilians!


(1) ok, he has no guns in his F-5 :-)

joeap
08-18-2006, 02:36 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:
It comes down to the individual person not which side he/she fought on. Even if you really try to count the terrible atrocities the Japanese commited somewhere down in Singapore, those are the actions of one SICK individual.
Its just not necessary. Its not that I'm saying

I particularly love the Japanese either their ideologies, beliefs, and propaganda during the war were wayyyy more flawed than ours ever. But it stil doesn't justify the strafing.

Take the opposing viewpoint, when Japan attacked Pearl did they carpet bomb Honululu killing hundreds of American civilians? Nope although there was unavoidable collateral damage (a lot due to friendly American artillery fire actualy) and civilian casulties that was not their intention at all. It was strictly a military objective, they went straight for the battleships and the port.

Yet our response in 1945? We indiscrimitately carpet bomb Japanese major cities killing citizen and civilian alike. I believe one raid on Tokyo in April of 45 annihilated 16 square miles and killed upwards of 300,000 people. How many innocent people that did absolutely nothing wrong were killed in that raid?



Some naive arguments, first of all, PH in 1941 and the carpet bombing of 1945 were seperated by 3 or so years of bloody war. The bombings were not a response to PH but to the situation that occured in 1945. Also the atrocities in Singapore and China were NOT the actions of some sick individuals but military policy. Google Unit 731 and tell me that was just some group of sick indivduals acting without higher approval.

Og course not every Japanese soldier was guilty, obviously, but sometimes both sides are not the same morally.

Ther reason the fisherman was strafed has nothing to do with that, directly, but a consequence of other things. Maybe the pilot was just some d"ck cowboy like the helicopter gunner in "Apocalypse Now". Maybe it was a case of misidentification, the pilots were misinformed that the boats were carrying military supplies or the guy was just in shoot mode as he had been shot at by AA or many other reasons.

The choice, is between peace and war, and war cannot be made comfortable and "nice."

AndyHigh
08-18-2006, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And out come the moralists... There is no way anyone knows if those were fishermen, or if they were sampan crewmen that transported war supplies, served as pickets, or gunboat crewmen. The sampan was the primary means of transporting war supplies by water in Japan near the end of WWII. They were hunted by planes, ships and submarines. They were absolutely valid targets, as were their crews.

And the double moralists. War crimes are horrible unless they committed by own boys, in which case they become perfectly justified by reasonable arguments.

Again, the commentary specificly said "fishermen". I can guess sampans were traditional way of transportation, civil or not. Attacking all of them at Japan's home front is gonna get civilians killed. Attacking civilians are usually considered a war crime (unless done by own troops). I can't see how strafing farmers at low altitude would benefit war efforts. The damage caused would be minimal, and you'd spent valuable ammunition on secondary targets while exposing your aircraft to possible ground fire. It'd create rage amongst civilians against your side and would make the resistance even more fanatic.

If this reasoning justifies to be a revisionist, then it must be so. I'm a revisionist, what a horrible thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif.

CHDT
08-18-2006, 04:45 AM
The damage caused would be minimal, and you'd spent valuable ammunition on secondary targets while exposing your aircraft to possible ground fire. It'd create rage amongst civilians against your side and would make the resistance even more fanatic.

Without forgetting that after having won the war, you must win the peace, by conquering the spirits of the people who lost the war.

luftluuver
08-18-2006, 05:12 AM
Anyone notice the massive blinding gun flashes http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif on the close-ups of the P-51 when firing?

Manu-6S
08-18-2006, 06:37 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by SkyChimp:
And out come the moralists... There is no way anyone knows if those were fishermen, or if they were sampan crewmen that transported war supplies, served as pickets, or gunboat crewmen. The sampan was the primary means of transporting war supplies by water in Japan near the end of WWII. They were hunted by planes, ships and submarines. They were absolutely valid targets, as were their crews.

And the double moralists. War crimes are horrible unless they committed by own boys, in which case they become perfectly justified by reasonable arguments.

Again, the commentary specificly said "fishermen". I can guess sampans were traditional way of transportation, civil or not. Attacking all of them at Japan's home front is gonna get civilians killed. Attacking civilians are usually considered a war crime (unless done by own troops). I can't see how strafing farmers at low altitude would benefit war efforts. The damage caused would be minimal, and you'd spent valuable ammunition on secondary targets while exposing your aircraft to possible ground fire. It'd create rage amongst civilians against your side and would make the resistance even more fanatic.

If this reasoning justifies to be a revisionist, then it must be so. I'm a revisionist, what a horrible thing http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gifhttp://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good Post.

To kill civilians voluntarily IS a war crime; point.

Telling the opposite thing it's like to say that the end justifies the ways: and this is totally wrong in a "civil world" (that Allied was fighting for).

Otherwise why don't you justify concentration camps too.

Why did the pilot shoot at the fishermen? I don't think it was an order, but the guy was only a fanatic like Chuck Yeager and a lot of military people (and like one of our mates here who posted "I envy you, trigger time!" then Pappy left the community for Afganistan).

But even if I agree with you about "they weren't civilian but soldiers" you must to know that every day people in northern Italy were strafed by allied planes. People in the farm, children in the street (yes, my granma told me... she was a partisan).

Pilot's mistake? NO, it was a normal thing.

The right thing? NO.

If you don't agree maybe you think was right to nuke them all too.

han freak solo
08-18-2006, 06:49 AM
Originally posted by darkhorizon11:

I understand what your saying but your arguing a different argument.

Actually, I'm not arguing any point at all. I like the clip in this thread, just like in this thread (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/23110283/m/1431034274) .

That quote was placed here to show how another vid clip thread got hijacked, that's all. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

SkyChimp
08-18-2006, 05:35 PM
An Invasion Not Found in the History Books
by James Martin Davis
reprinted from the Omaha World Herald, November 1987

Deep in the recesses of the National Archives in Washington, D.C., hidden for nearly four decades lie thousands of pages of yellowing and dusty documents stamped "Top Secret". These documents, now declassified, are the plans for Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan during World War II. Only a few Americans in 1945 were aware of the elaborate plans that had been prepared for the Allied Invasion of the Japanese home islands. Even fewer today are aware of the defenses the Japanese had prepared to counter the invasion had it been launched. Operation Downfall was finalized during the spring and summer of 1945. It called for two massive military undertakings to be carried out in succession and aimed at the heart of the Japanese Empire.

In the first invasion - code named Operation Olympic - American combat troops would land on Japan by amphibious assault during the early morning hours of November 1, 1945 - 50 years ago. Fourteen combat divisions of soldiers and Marines would land on heavily fortified and defended Kyushu, the southernmost of the Japanese home islands, after an unprecedented naval and aerial bombardment.
The second invasion on March 1, 1946 - code named Operation Coronet - would send at least 22 divisions against 1 million Japanese defenders on the main island of Honshu and the Tokyo Plain. It's goal: the unconditional surrender of Japan. With the exception of a part of the British Pacific Fleet, Operation Downfall was to be a strictly American operation. It called for using the entire Marine Corps, the entire Pacific Navy, elements of the 7th Army Air Force, the 8 Air Force (recently redeployed from Europe), 10th Air Force and the American Far Eastern Air Force. More than 1.5 million combat soldiers, with 3 million more in support or more than 40% of all servicemen still in uniform in 1945 - would be directly involved in the two amphibious assaults. Casualties were expected to be extremely heavy.

Admiral William Leahy estimated that there would be more than 250,000 Americans killed or wounded on Kyushu alone. General Charles Willoughby, chief of intelligence for General Douglas MacArthur, the Supreme Commander of the Southwest Pacific, estimated American casualties would be one million men by the fall of 1946. Willoughby's own intelligence staff considered this to be a conservative estimate.

During the summer of 1945, America had little time to prepare for such an endeavor, but top military leaders were in almost unanimous agreement that an invasion was necessary.

While naval blockade and strategic bombing of Japan was considered to be useful, General MacArthur, for instance, did not believe a blockade would bring about an unconditional surrender. The advocates for invasion agreed that while a naval blockade chokes, it does not kill; and though strategic bombing might destroy cities, it leaves whole armies intact.

So on May 25, 1945, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, after extensive deliberation, issued to General MacArthur, Admiral Chester Nimitz, and Army Air Force General Henry Arnold, the top secret directive to proceed with the invasion of Kyushu. The target date was after the typhoon season.

President Truman approved the plans for the invasions July 24. Two days later, the United Nations issued the Potsdam Proclamation, which called upon Japan to surrender unconditionally or face total destruction. Three days later, the Japanese governmental news agency broadcast to the world that Japan would ignore the proclamation and would refuse to surrender. During this sane period it was learned -- via monitoring Japanese radio broadcasts -- that Japan had closed all schools and mobilized its schoolchildren, was arming its civilian population and was fortifying caves and building underground defenses.

Operation Olympic called for a four pronged assault on Kyushu. Its purpose was to seize and control the southern one-third of that island and establish naval and air bases, to tighten the naval blockade of the home islands, to destroy units of the main Japanese army and to support the later invasion of the Tokyo Plain.

The preliminary invasion would began October 27 when the 40th Infantry Division would land on a series of small islands west and southwest of Kyushu. At the same time, the 158th Regimental Combat Team would invade and occupy a small island 28 miles south of Kyushu. On these islands, seaplane bases would be established and radar would be set up to provide advance air warning for the invasion fleet, to serve as fighter direction centers for the carrier-based aircraft and to provide an emergency anchorage for the invasion fleet, should things not go well on the day of the invasion. As the invasion grew imminent, the massive firepower of the Navy - the Third and Fifth Fleets -- would approach Japan. The Third Fleet, under Admiral William "Bull" Halsey, with its big guns and naval aircraft, would provide strategic support for the operation against Honshu and Hokkaido. Halsey's fleet would be composed of battleships, heavy cruisers, destroyers, dozens of support ships and three fast carrier task groups. From these carriers, hundreds of Navy fighters, dive bombers and torpedo planes would hit targets all over the island of Honshu. The 3,000 ship Fifth Fleet, under Admiral Raymond Spruance, would carry the invasion troops.

Several days before the invasion, the battleships, heavy cruisers and destroyers would pour thousands of tons of high explosives into the target areas. They would not cease the bombardment until after the land forces had been launched. During the early morning hours of November 1, the invasion would begin. Thousands of soldiers and Marines would pour ashore on beaches all along the eastern, southeastern, southern and western coasts of Kyushu. Waves of Helldivers, Dauntless dive bombers, Avengers, Corsairs, and Hellcats from 66 aircraft carriers would bomb, rocket and strafe enemy defenses, gun emplacements and troop concentrations along the beaches.

The Eastern Assault Force consisting of the 25th, 33rd and 41st Infantry Divisions would land near Miyaski, at beaches called Austin, Buick, Cadillac, Chevrolet, Chrysler, and Ford, and move inland to attempt to capture the city and its nearby airfield. The Southern Assault Force, consisting of the 1st Cavalry Division, the 43rd Division and Americal Division would land inside Ariake Bay at beaches labeled DeSoto, Dusenberg, Essex, Ford, and Franklin and attempt to capture Shibushi and the city of Kanoya and its airfield.

On the western shore of Kyushu, at beaches Pontiac, Reo, Rolls Royce, Saxon, Star, Studebaker, Stutz, Winston and Zephyr, the V Amphibious Corps would land the 2nd, 3rd and 5th Marine Divisions, sending half of its force inland to Sendai and the other half to the port city of Kagoshima.

On November 4, the Reserve Force, consisting of the 81st and 98th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division, after feigning an attack of the island of Shikoku, would be landed -- if not needed elsewhere -- near Kaimondake, near the southernmost tip of Kagoshima Bay, at the beaches designated Locomobile, Lincoln, LaSalle, Hupmobile, Moon, Mercedes, Maxwell, Overland, Oldsmobile, Packard and Plymouth.

Olympic was not just a plan for invasion, but for conquest and occupation as well. It was expected to take four months to achieve its objective, with the three fresh American divisions per month to be landed in support of that operation if needed.

If all went well with Olympic, Coronet would be launched March 1, 1946. Coronet would be twice the size of Olympic, with as many as 28 divisions landing on Honshu.

All along the coast east of Tokyo, the American 1st Army would land the 5th, 7th, 27th, 44th, 86th, and 96th Infantry Divisions along with the 4th and 6th Marine Divisions.

At Sagami Bay, just south of Tokyo, the entire 8th and 10th Armies would strike north and east to clear the long western shore of Tokyo Bay and attempt to go as far as Yokohama. The assault troops landing south of Tokyo would be the 4th, 6th, 8th, 24th, 31st, 37th, 38th and 8th Infantry Divisions, along with the 13th and 20th Armored Divisions.

Following the initial assault, eight more divisions - the 2nd, 28th, 35th, 91st, 95th, 97th and 104th Infantry Divisions and the 11th Airborne Division -- would be landed. If additional troops were needed, as expected, other divisions redeployed from Europe and undergoing training in the United States would be shipped to Japan in what was hoped to be the final push.

Captured Japanese documents and post war interrogations of Japanese military leaders disclose that information concerning the number of Japanese planes available for the defense of the home islands was dangerously in error.

During the sea battle at Okinawa alone, Japanese kamakaze aircraft sank 32 Allied ships and damaged more than 400 others. But during the summer of 1945, American top brass concluded that the Japanese had spent their air force since American bombers and fighters daily flew unmolested over Japan.

What the military leaders did not know was that by the end of July the Japanese had been saving all aircraft, fuel, and pilots in reserve, and had been feverishly building new planes for the decisive battle for their homeland.

As part of Ketsu-Go, the name for the plan to defend Japan -- the Japanese were building 20 suicide takeoff strips in southern Kyushu with underground hangars. They also had 35 camouflaged airfields and nine seaplane bases.

On the night before the expected invasion, 50 Japanese seaplane bombers, 100 former carrier aircraft and 50 land based army planes were to be launched in a suicide attack on the fleet.

The Japanese had 58 more airfields in Korea, western Honshu and Shikoku, which also were to be used for massive suicide attacks.

Allied intelligence had established that the Japanese had no more than 2,500 aircraft of which they guessed 300 would be deployed in suicide attacks.

In August 1945, however, unknown to Allied intelligence, the Japanese still had 5, 651 army and 7,074 navy aircraft, for a total of 12, 725 planes of all types. Every village had some type of aircraft manufacturing activity. Hidden in mines, railway tunnels, under viaducts and in basements of department stores, work was being done to construct new planes.

Additionally, the Japanese were building newer and more effective models of the Okka, a rocket-propelled bomb much like the German V-1, but flown by a suicide pilot.

When the invasion became imminent, Ketsu-Go called for a fourfold aerial plan of attack to destroy up to 800 Allied ships.

While Allied ships were approaching Japan, but still in the open seas, an initial force of 2,000 army and navy fighters were to fight to the death to control the skies over kyushu. A second force of 330 navy combat pilots were to attack the main body of the task force to keep it from using its fire support and air cover to protect the troop carrying transports. While these two forces were engaged, a third force of 825 suicide planes was to hit the American transports.

As the invasion convoys approached their anchorages, another 2,000 suicide planes were to be launched in waves of 200 to 300, to be used in hour by hour attacks.

By mid-morning of the first day of the invasion, most of the American land-based aircraft would be forced to return to their bases, leaving the defense against the suicide planes to the carrier pilots and the shipboard gunners.

Carrier pilots crippled by fatigue would have to land time and time again to rearm and refuel. Guns would malfunction from the heat of continuous firing and ammunition would become scarce. Gun crews would be exhausted by nightfall, but still the waves of kamikaze would continue. With the fleet hovering off the beaches, all remaining Japanese aircraft would be committed to nonstop suicide attacks, which the Japanese hoped could be sustained for 10 days. The Japanese planned to coordinate their air strikes with attacks from the 40 remaining submarines from the Imperial Navy -- some armed with Long Lance torpedoes with a range of 20 miles -- when the invasion fleet was 180 miles off Kyushu.

The Imperial Navy had 23 destroyers and two cruisers which were operational. These ships were to be used to counterattack the American invasion. A number of the destroyers were to be beached at the last minute to be used as anti-invasion gun platforms.

Once offshore, the invasion fleet would be forced to defend not only against the attacks from the air, but would also be confronted with suicide attacks from sea. Japan had established a suicide naval attack unit of midget submarines, human torpedoes and exploding motorboats.

The goal of the Japanese was to shatter the invasion before the landing. The Japanese were convinced the Americans would back off or become so demoralized that they would then accept a less-than-unconditional surrender and a more honorable and face-saving end for the Japanese.

But as horrible as the battle of Japan would be off the beaches, it would be on Japanese soil that the American forces would face the most rugged and fanatical defense encountered during the war.

Throughout the island-hopping Pacific campaign, Allied troops had always out numbered the Japanese by 2 to 1 and sometimes 3 to 1. In Japan it would be different. By virtue of a combination of cunning, guesswork, and brilliant military reasoning, a number of Japan's top military leaders were able to deduce, not only when, but where, the United States would land its first invasion forces.

Facing the 14 American divisions landing at Kyushu would be 14 Japanese divisions, 7 independent mixed brigades, 3 tank brigades and thousands of naval troops. On Kyushu the odds would be 3 to 2 in favor of the Japanese, with 790,000 enemy defenders against 550,000 Americans. This time the bulk of the Japanese defenders would not be the poorly trained and ill-equipped labor battalions that the Americans had faced in the earlier campaigns.

The Japanese defenders would be the hard core of the home army. These troops were well-fed and well equipped. They were familiar with the terrain, had stockpiles of arms and ammunition, and had developed an effective system of transportation and supply almost invisible from the air. Many of these Japanese troops were the elite of the army, and they were swollen with a fanatical fighting spirit.

Japan's network of beach defenses consisted of offshore mines, thousands of suicide scuba divers attacking landing craft, and mines planted on the beaches. Coming ashore, the American Eastern amphibious assault forces at Miyazaki would face three Japanese divisions, and two others poised for counterattack. Awaiting the Southeastern attack force at Ariake Bay was an entire division and at least one mixed infantry brigade.

On the western shores of Kyushu, the Marines would face the most brutal opposition. Along the invasion beaches would be the three Japanese divisions , a tank brigade, a mixed infantry brigade and an artillery command. Components of two divisions would also be poised to launch counterattacks.

If not needed to reinforce the primary landing beaches, the American Reserve Force would be landed at the base of Kagoshima Bay November 4, where they would be confronted by two mixed infantry brigades, parts of two infantry divisions and thousands of naval troops.

All along the invasion beaches, American troops would face coastal batteries, anti-landing obstacles and a network of heavily fortified pillboxes, bunkers, and underground fortresses. As Americans waded ashore, they would face intense artillery and mortar fire as they worked their way through concrete rubble and barbed-wire entanglements arranged to funnel them into the muzzles of these Japanese guns.

On the beaches and beyond would be hundreds of Japanese machine gun positions, beach mines, booby traps, trip-wire mines and sniper units. Suicide units concealed in "spider holes" would engage the troops as they passed nearby. In the heat of battle, Japanese infiltration units would be sent to reap havoc in the American lines by cutting phone and communication lines. Some of the Japanese troops would be in American uniform, English-speaking Japanese officers were assigned to break in on American radio traffic to call off artillery fire, to order retreats and to further confuse troops. Other infiltration with demolition charges strapped on their chests or backs wold attempt to blow up american tanks, artillery pieces and ammunition stores as they were unloaded ashore.

Beyond the beaches were large artillery pieces situated to bring down a curtain of fire on the beach. Some of these large guns were mounted on railroad tracks running in and out of caves protected by concrete and steel.

The battle for Japan would be won by what Simon Bolivar Buckner, a lieutenant general in the Confederate army during the Civil War, had called "Prairie Dog Warfare." This type of fighting was almost unknown to the ground troops in Europe and the Mediterranean. It was peculiar only to the soldiers and Marines who fought the Japanese on islands all over the Pacific -- at Tarawa, Saipan, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Prairie Dog Warfare was a battle for yards, feet and sometimes inches. It was brutal, deadly and dangerous form of combat aimed at an underground, heavily fortified, non-retreating enemy.

In the mountains behind the Japanese beaches were underground networks of caves, bunkers, command posts and hospitals connected by miles of tunnels with dozens of entrances and exits. Some of these complexes could hold up to 1,000 troops.

In addition to the use of poison gas and bacteriological warfare (which the Japanese had experimented with), Japan mobilized its citizenry.

Had Olympic come about, the Japanese civilian population, inflamed by a national slogan - "One Hundred Million Will Die for the Emperor and Nation" - were prepared to fight to the death. Twenty Eight Million Japanese had become a part of the National Volunteer Combat Force. They were armed with ancient rifles, lunge mines, satchel charges, Molotov cocktails and one-shot black powder mortars. Others were armed with swords, long bows, axes and bamboo spears. The civilian units were to be used in nighttime attacks, hit and run maneuvers, delaying actions and massive suicide charges at the weaker American positions.

At the early stage of the invasion, 1,000 Japanese and American soldiers would be dying every hour.

The invasion of Japan never became a reality because on August 6, 1945, an atomic bomb was exploded over Hiroshima. Three days later, a second bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. Within days the war with Japan was at a close.

Had these bombs not been dropped and had the invasion been launched as scheduled, combat casualties in Japan would have been at a minimum of the tens of thousands. Every foot of Japanese soil would have been paid for by Japanese and American lives.

One can only guess at how many civilians would have committed suicide in their homes or in futile mass military attacks.

In retrospect, the 1 million American men who were to be the casualties of the invasion, were instead lucky enough to survive the war.

Intelligence studies and military estimates made 50 years ago, and not latter-day speculation, clearly indicate that the battle for Japan might well have resulted in the biggest blood-bath in the history of modern warfare.

Far worse would be what might have happened to Japan as a nation and as a culture. When the invasion came, it would have come after several months of fire bombing all of the remaining Japanese cities. The cost in human life that resulted from the two atomic blasts would be small in comparison to the total number of Japanese lives that would have been lost by this aerial devastation.

With American forces locked in combat in the south of Japan, little could have prevented the Soviet Union from marching into the northern half of the Japanese home islands. Japan today cold be divided much like Korea and Germany.

The world was spared the cost of Operation Downfall, however, because Japan formally surrendered to the United Nations September 2, 1945, and World War II was over.

The aircraft carriers, cruisers and transport ships scheduled to carry the invasion troops to Japan, ferried home American troops in a gigantic operation called Magic Carpet.

In the fall of 1945, in the aftermath of the war, few people concerned themselves with the invasion plans. Following the surrender, the classified documents, maps, diagrams and appendices for Operation Downfall were packed away in boxes and eventually stored at the National Archives. These plans that called for the invasion of Japan paint a vivid description of what might have been one of the most horrible campaigns in the history of man. The fact that the story of the invasion of Japan is locked up in the National Archives and is not told in our history books is something for which all Americans can be thankful.

======

To the Americans, there were no non-combatants in Japan. Given Japan's plans and history, its easy to see why the Americans considered Japanese civilians as fair targets. Something the neo-moralists on this site should think about before casting disparaging remarks based on wild speculation and gross misunderstanding.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-18-2006, 06:40 PM
Well said, Skychimp.

Thank you for posting that.

My late grandfather was one of those Canadian Soldiers who was supposed to have been landed in the Japanese invasion - and if it had come to fruition, he likely would not have survived - as i understand it, he was an unarmed member of a (he was a religious conscientious objecter to carrying a weapon, but he had no issue with serving, in that time), front-lines battle repair and recovery team. He'd survived the full duration of the war in relative safety from 1939 onwards, on the west coast helping to maintain equipment in the army depot in Vancouver, and assisted with equipment/dozer maintenance (that which actually got repaired, instead of simply abandoning in the bush on the side of the road if it broke down) during the building of the Al-Can highway to Alaska.

Before he passed on 15 years ago, we discussed his wartime experience.. he knew his chances for survival was slim in his projected role, and he knew enough about the invasion plans beforehand (the writing was on the wall about the need to take the Japanese homelands at any cost and with all hands, whether you were in the know or not) to be scared ****less for his survival. Enough to go AWOL back to the east coast long enough to see his 3 month old daughter for possibly the last time. All servicemen on the west coast were being mobilised for the invasion, whether they were direct combat capable or not - if they had a purpose, they were to go in with the Canadian effort at or shortly after the American invasion.

As i said, it was total war. People today, have no understanding of what it was like at that time. There were no non-combatants. It was all, or nothing. If you pass judgement on the actions of people in that time, you are revisionist moralising.

Ares_336sqn
08-18-2006, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
....People today, have no understanding of what it was like at that time. There were no non-combatants. It was all, or nothing. If you pass judgement on the actions of people in that time, you are revisionist moralising.

really??.... Whole villages were burned down and their people executed in Greece. My grandfather fought in Greek -Italian war. My mother was 7 years old when the Germans entered Athens, 11 when they left. She remembered everything as if it was yesterday.
Her 15 years old brother was executed by the Germans for writing anti-occupation messages on the walls. Where she lived countless people of all ages were executed. They were randomly picked every time a German soldier was killed.
Hundreds of thousands died out of hunger because all food was going to the German army. When they left, they destroyed every single factory, locomotive , bridge and ship. there was nothing, absolutely nothing.
These were war crimes and what you describe as "ok" are war crimes as well by any definition, law, local or international.
And never ,EVER, dare to say we do not know how it was. We do, YOU, have no idea. Point that finger to yourself.
War crimes are war crimes and there can never be an excuse.

Ares_336sqn
08-18-2006, 07:36 PM
What?? someone lost the keys and can't lock this miserable thread?

Bandit.426Cdn
08-18-2006, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
....People today, have no understanding of what it was like at that time. There were no non-combatants. It was all, or nothing. If you pass judgement on the actions of people in that time, you are revisionist moralising.

really??.... Whole villages were burned down and their people executed in Greece. My grandfather fought in Greek -Italian war. My mother was 7 years old when the Germans entered Athens, 11 when they left. She remembered everything as if it was yesterday.
Her 15 years old brother was executed by the Germans for writing anti-occupation messages on the walls. Where she lived countless people of all ages were executed. They were randomly picked every time a German soldier was killed.
Hundreds of thousands died out of hunger because all food was going to the German army. When they left, they destroyed every single factory, locomotive , bridge and ship. there was nothing, absolutely nothing.
These were war crimes and what you describe as "ok" are war crimes as well by any definition, law, local or international.
And never ,EVER, dare to say we do not know how it was. We do, YOU, have no idea. Point that finger to yourself.
War crimes are war crimes and there can never be an excuse. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There is a difference between passing judgement on their actions, and condoning war-crimes. I am doing neither. Sorry about your relatives luck and all that - but again it's war. You and I are not responsible for it. It is not our role to judge the actions of anyone on any side - but to learn from the times for the present, and future. You have no direct knowlege of those times either - just the witnesses of history to remember, and learn from.

Again - whether it was an aviator strafing fishing boats, or what the Nazi's did to your country - It is not our role to judge on their morality's. It is our role to learn from them, and make sure those events never happen again.

Guess what, 60 years on, same ****, different countries, more bloodshed. We haven't learned.

It was TOTAL WAR. What part of that, do people not understand? It was a war for survival. The remaining free world did not want themselves to experience what happened to Greece and other countries under occupation. Morality came second, to getting the job done. Atrocities occured on all sides, war crimes between all belligerents, civil and military also occured. It was a total war, as your family experienced. The only way to prevent the war crimes from occuring, is to not have war - and that is a sad, tragic flaw of our species; We cannot stop warring against each other and committing atrocities in the names of our causes, whether they be righteous or not.

A war crime is always defined, and judged by the victor, alone - That is the reality. We can identify in the present, the war-crimes of the past, but anyone under the age of 60, in this day and age, has no true understanding of those times first-hand. Neither will that person know the motivations, the politics, the true atmosphere of those times. War does not take long to strip the veneer of civilised behavior from otherwise normal human beings - on both sides of the battle. One cannot judge, what one doesn't fully understand.

Treetop64
08-18-2006, 07:43 PM
Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
What?? someone lost the keys and can't lock this miserable thread?

Then why did you contribute to this "miserable thread"? Did you improve it in any way? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Ares_336sqn
08-18-2006, 07:48 PM
Because i am pissed off by all these idiots... that is why... Need anymore help to lock this thrash bin? i can help mods do it even if i am banned for life.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-18-2006, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
Because i am pissed off by all these idiots... that is why... Need anymore help to lock this thrash bin? i can help mods do it even if i am banned for life.

Perhaps you need to step away from the computer and clear your head. Or you could just ignore the comments from the 'idiots', including me. Your choice.

Treetop64
08-18-2006, 08:13 PM
Ares, no one is forcing you to read this thread. If you don't like it, simply click out. But just because you're annoyed by us "idiots" doesn't mean that no one else should be afforded the opportunity to contribute.

This isn't the first sensitive thread in this forum, and it certainly won't be the last. Says a lot of the mods, I think (in a good way).

J_Anonymous
08-18-2006, 09:46 PM
Folks, I have been trying not to read this thread from the moment I found the title. I knew that those who want to believe what s/he wants to believe would not change their mind no matter what.

Just let me inform you of a FACT, without throwing any judgement; many allied fighter pilots conducted "joy rides" over Japan, starafing even little children, just for fun. That's a FACT. I read at least several published tales by those little children who survived joy rider's strafing by diving into muddy water of rice fields or sewage etc.

Now, just imagine your mother was one of those little girls who had to run for her life from joy riders.

One of my grade school buddies' mom was a little girl when she was strafed. I heard her story from herself when I was 6 years old. I still remember that conversation 3 decades later, as I was so scared. My own mother was luckier. She never had to run from strafing U.S. planes, only her elementary school in the middle of a farming area was attacked when she was not around.

One of the most famous cases of children surviving allied fighter pilot's joy ride over Japan was recorded by a famous author A. Nosaka. He and his little sister susrvived strafing, but she eventually died of starvation. A famous "anime" movie, entitled "Hotaru no haka" is based on their true story. See

http://www.nausicaa.net/miyazaki/grave/synopsis/page08.html

for the strafing scene. Reviews are here;

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0095327/usercomments?start=60

A few days ago, I was watching one of those NBC morning shows, Regis and Kelly with my wife. It was featuring a cooking contest by viewers, and one of the 3 men judge panel was a Japanese "iron chef." None of those US pilots nor little Japanese children would have imagined a Japanese cook appearing in a mainstream TV show in US, don't you think? Time has changed. There is no point throwing accusations of who did what before 1945, or who was worse than whom because of this and that. Having said that, please, just close your eyes, and imagine, your mother as a 6 years old running from a strafing plane....

I am not going to make any more posts in this thread.

AndyHigh
08-19-2006, 05:32 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
To the Americans, there were no non-combatants in Japan. Given Japan's plans and history, its easy to see why the Americans considered Japanese civilians as fair targets. Something the neo-moralists on this site should think about before casting disparaging remarks based on wild speculation and gross misunderstanding.

Allright, no matter what, the americans soldiers did and will never do anything wrong. Are you pleased now?

And thanks for sharing the plan and studies. There's just one problem: these plans and forecasts never came to exist in reality. We only may know for sure (if given the possibility) what happened in reality.

American home front was not under direct attack in WWI or WWII. The war was not fought there, and your troops were fighting in some exotic countries thousands of miles a way. Thats one of the reasons why I personally find it disgusting when people over the Atlantic tries to teach fe. europeans about the moral part of the war, or speak about the term revisionism in wrong context.

Most of the current history research would be called "revisionistic" by some people here.

SkyChimp
08-19-2006, 05:50 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
Most of the current history research would be called "revisionistic" by some people here.

Of course they would, especially if the truth didn't meet their own neo-moralist, revisionist standards.

In the meantime, lets all learn a little history from an anime movie. Wonder if they produced any on thi history?

http://www.metroactive.com/papers/metro/12.12.96/gifs/china2-9650.jpg

Bandit.426Cdn
08-19-2006, 06:18 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:


American home front was not under direct attack in WWI or WWII. The war was not fought there, and your troops were fighting in some exotic countries thousands of miles a way. Thats one of the reasons why I personally find it disgusting when people over the Atlantic tries to teach fe. europeans about the moral part of the war, or speak about the term revisionism in wrong context.

Most of the current history research would be called "revisionistic" by some people here.

Wrong, sorry. North America was under direct threat of attack, and invasion. The purpose of the Alcan highway, of which my late Grandfather took part in construction of, was to provide a route of supply to the US forces in Alaska, in the case of the war going badly after America's entry into the war. The Japanese had gained a toe-hold in the Aleutians immediately after Pearl Harbour, and these were the 'stepping stones' to Alaska proper. It was an over-extended route of supply that prevented the Japanese from further exploiting this route of invasion, not the Americans ability to defend the Alaskan coast line, in this period of the war. The North American continent was under direct threat.

AndyHigh
08-19-2006, 06:27 AM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
Wrong, sorry. North America was under direct threat of attack, and invasion. The purpose of

You're splitting hairs here and didn't understand what I wrote. Possible threat is just that, a threat. There was no savage war or major suffering on civil front going over American continent in WWI or WWII.

AndyHigh
08-19-2006, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Of course they would, especially if the truth didn't meet their own neo-moralist, revisionist standards.


Don't be silly. The information came from original US war documentary afterall, are you claiming it is revisionistic too? Please stop using these terms if you don't know their meaning.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-19-2006, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
Wrong, sorry. North America was under direct threat of attack, and invasion. The purpose of

You're splitting hairs here and didn't understand what I wrote. Possible threat is just that, a threat. There was no savage war or major suffering on civil front going over American continent in WWI or WWII. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So what is your point then? It was a global war - our ancestors fought it, on either side, in all theatres. War crimes, atrocities, and just plain nasty things happened everywhere. Because you sit in a country that was directly subjugated or under immediate threat by the axis powers, you think you have more rights to an opinion on moralistic revisionism than someone who lives on the North American continent in the present day?

Give it a rest. War is Hell. Sacrifices and losses were experienced by both civilians, and combatants everywhere. It was a dark time in history, for which we need to learn from, and not pass judgement on, when our hindsite is 20/20 and we pass judgement based on present day moral values, without regard to the reality and brutality of that period of history on all sides of the war.

Maybe this thread should be locked - some people just cannot see the big picture.

AndyHigh
08-19-2006, 06:52 AM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
So what is your point then? It was a global war - our ancestors fought it, on either side, in all theatres. War crimes, atrocities, and just plain nasty things happened everywhere. Because you sit in a country that was directly subjugated or under immediate threat by the axis powers, you think you have more rights to an opinion on moralistic revisionism than someone who lives on the North American continent in the present day?


I was mainly disgusted with some typical reaction from your "side". Instead of honestly admitting that certain actions might have been wrong or even war crimes, some posters decided to defend these actions without doubt. I've seen it many times before and couldn't just let it go now.

But don't worry though, I don't believe opposite opinions will change anything in this case. Just try to learn what double moralism means.

AndyHigh
08-19-2006, 07:17 AM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
Because you sit in a country that was directly subjugated or under immediate threat by the axis powers...

And btw. I do not. My home country was first attacked by a later allied country (or empire). After it my country did a deal with the devil to get back what was ours. It succeeded for some time, but in the end of it we lost even more and my country and some of its wartime leaders were declared for being "guilty" for war in 1947. Fair game or not? Well, after all we were more lucky than some other nations that were under same situation in 1939.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-19-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally posted by AndyHigh:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
Because you sit in a country that was directly subjugated or under immediate threat by the axis powers...

And btw. I do not. My home country was first attacked by a later allied country (or empire). After it my country did a deal with the devil to get back what was ours. It succeeded for some time, but in the end of it we lost even more and my country and some of its wartime leaders were declared for being "guilty" for war in 1947. Fair game or not? Well, after all we were more lucky than some other nations that were under same situation in 1939. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War-responsibility_trials_in_Finland

Interesting, i'll need to read more into it. Definitely overshadowed by the Nuremberg trials.

Fork-N-spoon
08-19-2006, 10:43 AM
Something that's always amazed me is how careless many pilots were while strafing and shooting at enemy targets.

3 minutes and 54 into the Mustang video one pilot is strafing and his rounds are bouncing into the air in very close proximity of two other Mustangs ahead of him. I've seen this quite often. Anybody remember the F6F video? In the F6F video one Hellcat is shooting at an airborne enemy aircraft. Another Hellcat flies directly into the first Hellcats line of fire. The First Hellcat pilot doesn't stop shooting either!

Manu-6S
08-19-2006, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
some people just cannot see the big picture.

Yes, a big picture where people think they are the "Good" people, against Evil: enemy is "always" the Evil by your way of thinking, and for "enemy" you don't mean only the armed one.

And since enemies are the Evil you think to have the right to end their lifes (do you remember the "tribute to Luftwaffe's pilots" thread?).

Maybe you are the same men who pray God every day (God Bless this and that... for everything... hypocrites): but remeber there's written somewhere "You shall not murder."

You say TOTAL WAR: When is a war total? When you seal it?

As Army who fight for freedom (FAKE), democracy (FAKE) and HUMAN RIGHTS you MUST protect civilians: it's your duty.

Soldiers can lose their life in a war: it's a risky job... just keep killing each or other without hurting kids, women and old men, I don't care: but killing civilans by starvation or bombing over their heads make you "Evil" like your enemy.

The same stupid story "they started before us" it's BS if you really care of your ideals, above all if you are speaking about human lifes.


Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
It was a dark time in history, for which we need to learn from, and not pass judgement on, when our hindsite is 20/20 and we pass judgement based on present day moral values, without regard to the reality and brutality of that period of history on all sides of the war.


Today is not different because the same things happen everyday in Middle East: I'm not wrong when I said that civilian deads are far superior to the others. West nations with great ideals but above all those with great armies, should to think before declaring war. It can be funny and ironic, but it's like a famous comic strip said: "With great power comes great responsibility".

I won't give a gun to a kid, nor a P51 to a fanatic man, nor an entire nation to a dumb.

PS: sorry for my language mistakes...

SkyChimp
08-19-2006, 02:34 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:

I won't give a gun to a kid, nor a P51 to a fanatic man, nor an entire nation to a dumb.


Yet Japan did all those things.

You have a double standard of monumentous proportions.

Bandit.426Cdn
08-19-2006, 02:41 PM
Jesus, i'm done with this thread. Some of you people attribute my comments to a philosophy i do not hold. This is getting too personal.

Manu-68: good and evil is a religious concept, i do not believe in any religion. In war, it is one side against the other. Simple as that. IF there is a god(s), he/she/it/plural is standing back and saying "you stupid human ****s" to both sides.. Again, war is all about making the other side capitulate by any means necessary. Again the veneer of humanity in man in wartime, is stripped away very quickly. War crimes do happen. Don't blame me for them - i am NOT defending them - they are simply non-preventable in the fog of modern war when you have so many people, on both sides involved. Warfare is ugly, for the soldier, and for the civilian. Total war is the end result of our modern, industrialised world. It is waged on the economic and industrial sector of the enemy, as well as on the military components of the enemy, by both sides of a conflict. It is an ugly reality of our times, in which one side whould call a war crime an atrocity, and the other side a necessity. How it is defined, is usually by the winning side in the end. That is simply the way it is.

I'm done.

Manu-6S
08-19-2006, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Yet Japan did all those things.

You have a double standard of monumentous proportions.

And so? If they acted like animals why should you?

Please read the first part of my post.

Manu-6S
08-19-2006, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
Jesus, i'm done with this thread. Some of you people attribute my comments to a philosophy i do not hold. This is getting too personal.

Manu-68: good and evil is a religious concept, i do not believe in any religion. In war, it is one side against the other. Simple as that. IF there is a god(s), he/she/it/plural is standing back and saying "you stupid human ****s" to both sides.. Again, war is all about making the other side capitulate by any means necessary. Again the veneer of humanity in man in wartime, is stripped away very quickly. War crimes do happen. Don't blame me for them - i am NOT defending them - they are simply non-preventable in the fog of modern war when you have so many people, on both sides involved. Warfare is ugly, for the soldier, and for the civilian. Total war is the end result of our modern, industrialised world. It is waged on the economic and industrial sector of the enemy, as well as on the military components of the enemy, by both sides of a conflict. It is an ugly reality of our times, in which one side whould call a war crime an atrocity, and the other side a necessity. How it is defined, is usually by the winning side in the end. That is simply the way it is.

I'm done.

No personal attack to you, Bandit, only generalization.

Seen the way some people defended the Mustang's pilot insteed of condemning him I was referring to all these guys.

I understand your thought and I respect you: but I think you are too unhopeful. World can't work this way again: people have to stand up and stop this culture of violence.


Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
Don't blame me for them - i am NOT defending them - they are simply non-preventable in the fog of modern war when you have so many people, on both sides involved.

You are wrong Bandit:

Firing a missile on a market plenty of civilians to KILL ONE man is a WAR CRIME. Non-preventable deads?

Look at what Israel is doing to Lebano (not to hezbollah... I mean to the Lebanese population):

Ambulances that can't reach injured civilian people 'cause a bastard in a F16 can make them explode.

Using artillery against small lived villages to hit "something" they think there is.

Are all these civilian deads NON-PREVENTABLE?


Originally posted by Bandit.426Cdn:
It is an ugly reality of our times, in which one side whould call a war crime an atrocity, and the other side a necessity.

You are admitting world didn't learn nothing from the past.

From my point of view Nazi's extermination plan of jewish people, retaliatory actions against civilans, farmers strafing and nukes on city are ALL atrocities, ALL war crimes.

But if your statement is true, I think we can take them as a necessities.

PS: just you to know, I'm atheistic (right word?), but I hate the hypocrisy of some religious nations.

Rjel
08-19-2006, 06:15 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:No personal attack to you, Bandit, only generalization.
Seen the way some people defended the Mustang's pilot insteed of condemning him I was referring to all these guys.


How can you be certain what this pilot was seeing? I've just finished watching that segment on DVD repeatedly, and I still can't see what those figures are. They might be fisherman, they might be soldiers, but from the video I'm watching I can't be sure. And what you're seeing on a grainy website video is even more difficult. We see a small segment of beach with a small boat on it. Where was this located? In the middle of nowhere or was it a piece of land near a military base? We don't know.

The idea we should "condemn" this pilot based simply on what we "think" we see here is laughable. We don't know when or where this occurred, who the pilot even was, or who the targeted men even are.

Fork-N-spoon
08-19-2006, 08:21 PM
If what the Mustang pilot was doing is wrong, then why is it acceptable that many men took part in dropping bombs on civilians? The fire bomb raids killed a lot of civilians. Submarines sank civilian ships, but the Mustang pilot that shoots at two people is some war criminal...

I've frequently wondered how today's media would cover WWII...

ljazz
08-19-2006, 08:23 PM
Originally posted by JtD:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by ElAurens:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FlixFlix:
More important: fishermen. unprotected fishermen as seen in the flick.
Such heroes.

Food is a strategic resource my friend. It's production is a viable target.

War isn't a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Japanese did not eat people. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Really?..... you should give Flyboys a read.

SkyChimp
08-19-2006, 08:29 PM
Manu, you are a neo-moralist. You have a huge double standard. You hold one side to a higher standard than the other. Why is that? By doing so you diminish the truth surrounding that war. You concentrate on one occurence you neither participated in nor understand, and place the pilot of that plane in the same category as the perpetrators of history's most enormous atrocities. I find that repugnant and sickening.

Manu-6S
08-20-2006, 03:28 AM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:No personal attack to you, Bandit, only generalization.
Seen the way some people defended the Mustang's pilot insteed of condemning him I was referring to all these guys.


How can you be certain what this pilot was seeing? I've just finished watching that segment on DVD repeatedly, and I still can't see what those figures are. They might be fisherman, they might be soldiers, but from the video I'm watching I can't be sure. And what you're seeing on a grainy website video is even more difficult. We see a small segment of beach with a small boat on it. Where was this located? In the middle of nowhere or was it a piece of land near a military base? We don't know.

The idea we should "condemn" this pilot based simply on what we "think" we see here is laughable. We don't know when or where this occurred, who the pilot even was, or who the targeted men even are. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Here is a part of my fisrt post that you forgot:


Originally posted by Manu-6S:
But even if I agree with you about "they weren't civilian but soldiers" you must to know that every day people in northern Italy were strafed by allied planes. People in the farm, children in the street (yes, my granma told me... she was a partisan).

There is more in history than that you see on TV, ydon't you know?

Manu-6S
08-20-2006, 03:34 AM
Originally posted by Fork-N-spoon:
If what the Mustang pilot was doing is wrong, then why is it acceptable that many men took part in dropping bombs on civilians? The fire bomb raids killed a lot of civilians. Submarines sank civilian ships, but the Mustang pilot that shoots at two people is some war criminal...

I've frequently wondered how today's media would cover WWII...

Infact it isn't acceptable: I watch actions, I don't care the number of deads.

A war crime is a war crime: if a man rapes 10 women he's a criminal. If another rapes "only" 3 women (less than 10) mean that he's not a criminal?

The question is: For the ideals that you support is acceptable to strafe civilians?

Today media are fully controlled: if you see information structures are the first to be blowed. You know... it's a free world!!! http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Manu-6S
08-20-2006, 03:49 AM
Originally posted by SkyChimp:
Manu, you are a neo-moralist. You have a huge double standard. You hold one side to a higher standard than the other. Why is that? By doing so you diminish the truth surrounding that war. You concentrate on one occurence you neither participated in nor understand, and place the pilot of that plane in the same category as the perpetrators of history's most enormous atrocities. I find that repugnant and sickening.

Yes I do, I condamn actions... I only want to listen somebody here saying "The guy was wrong, he should not have strafe civilians".

And, since somebody thinks they were soldiers, what do you think about strafing farmers and children? (northern Italy)

Are you not agree? Ok, but then don't play the role of the good and religious boy. This is what I find repugnant and sickening.

Oh, btw...Don't you ever think that your TRUTH can be different from mine? Because yes, it is.

American armies were good then helped civilians people with supplies... but you know bad apples exist: I only would people not to justify them because they worked for the greater good.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Enforcer572005
08-20-2006, 07:47 AM
I'm amazed at how many guys who fly a ww2 combat sim can have so little understanding of war and history. Those P-51 pilots were doing what they had to do to stop a power responsible for atrocities ranking among the worse in recored history as a POLICY.

Tojo and the Bushido code fanatics who kept him in power and followed his orders should be getting the blame, not the allied pilots. those pilots did what they had to do to win, and there was no way to discern targets to that extent when military capability is so interwound and dependant on the civilian infrastrucure (as in all countries), and this is still true today.

Ever hear of picket boats? What do you think spotted the Hornet and caused the Doolittle raid to be launched early? Who do you think they sent after allied downed pilots before subs or seaplanes could rescue them? Those "fishermen" were legit targets.


The only way to fight a war sanitized to the unrealistic standard presented here is just to surrender to genocidal maniacs who would make such apologists into lampshades.

And its amazing to me that Skychimp's excellent post about the impending invasion of Japan was completely ignored. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_confused.gif

joeap
08-20-2006, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:



And, since somebody thinks they were soldiers, what do you think about strafing farmers and children? (northern Italy)



http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Was this a deliberate policy? Were they meybe misidentified LW planes (not trying to "put the blame on the Germans") yes I realize there were far fewer LW planes around jsut that Italy was now the enemy for Germany. Of course the poltical situation was err confused (I've heard the Italian film "Rome Open City" is very good in talking about the partisan movement I want to knwo mor myself) Nothern Italy was officialy under the Salo Republic, a puppet Nazi state so also a state at war with the Allies officialy.

Did the Germans use the civilan infrastucture? Hide ammo in farms etc? Maybe that is why they were hit? Not trying to justify but to reinforce what Enforceer has said. There isa difference to my mind in waging war and combat and the type of crimes commited by Decima Flottiglia MAS under Borghese. Just IMHO.

Though you would wonder that most of the civilians supported the partisans IIRC. Oh and S! to your grandmother a brave woman.

Ares_336sqn
08-20-2006, 08:14 AM
Ok, then lets do the atrocities, so that we finish the war sooner and save time. It is reasonable.
You know what? Lets start the atrocities ourselves, why wait.. it will save time and lifes. It is reasonable.
Lets starve civiliabs to death. it will save time and lifes. It is reasonable.
Lets rob a bank. we will be rich sooner and easier. It is not morally correct but, who cares. It is reasonable.
But still, all these are crimes. Who said crimes do not have a reason to be commited? Do you know any crimes ever commited without a good reason? Does that make them right?
Some will argue that if they are commited for the good of their country and for a good cause, without a personal benefit out of them, then it is not the same.
And who is the person to be so arrogant to calim he knows exactly when he is right?
I am sure the SS were thinking the same way.
Then , you may say that i am arrogant enough to say i know what is right, since i write all that stuff. perhaps yes, perhaps no, but, at least i do not plan to kill anybody to help my cause and, i do not support anybody who kills civilians to help achieve his cause.

Haigotron
08-20-2006, 08:27 AM
is it me, or does it seem it can turn fight also? following that japanese plane around and around?

LEBillfish
08-20-2006, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
Ok, then lets do the atrocities, so that we finish the ............

OR............

Lets all continue hammering at something that really had little to nothing to do with the tread, let alone the film being it really was nothing more then a propaganda piece tp sooth the rage of the homefront.....As in reality those arguing this....

Are simply spoiling for a fight, so obviously lacking in their own lives that they use a simple thread to soapbox upon, then try to be the reason to close it as though their thoughts and opinions outweigh all others........

Sorry, yet it will take a lot more book burning and thread locking to control the thoughts of others.......Make your points, then drop it. Anything more is fruitless as you'll not change history 60 years past, anymore then you'll change the future trying to do it from a flight sim forum.

If that serious about it, as we all should be, then such time should be devoted to current events and contacting our own governments then posting here about it.

LEBillfish
08-20-2006, 08:55 AM
Originally posted by Haigotron:
is it me, or does it seem it can turn fight also? following that japanese plane around and around?

Think it's just you, yet the impression valid in that an experienced mustang pilot taking on what was most likely a very inexperienced Japanese pilot should be able to use a little roll, stall and so on to stay on a poorly turned target just a little longer.

Remember though, much of those films seem to be taken with either high speed camera's (which I'd doubt but don't know) or slowed down. So a 1.5 second pass might look like 5.

Also note most of the Japanese pilots were pulling up in a strained climb yet holding it. The "split-S" in a Japanese plane the evasive manuever of experienced pilots flying them. That no Mustang would ever be able to follow them through.

Manu-6S
08-20-2006, 08:58 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41377000/jpg/_41377687_child.jpg

Wow, this's really dangerous! But don't be scared, now he's dead. Think if he invaded your country...

Kill him before he'll kill you, it works this way, am I wrong?

@joeap:
Allied planes, confirmed by a lot of sources. They used to strafe and bomb; people called these planes all "Pippo". My granma told me how a day a "Pippo" strafed her home: bullets entered int her brother's room, hitting the bed, but luckily he wasn't there.

You have also to know that partisans were really active on northern Italy: think that Venice (as like Padua) were free before the allies arrived.

Since her country was under the Salo Republic there this didn't mean the all the civilans were fascists. A lot good people died, who by Nazi's hand a who by Allied hand.

Partisans choosed to fight and death was a risk; civilians don't choose.

And, since I'm not an hypocrite I tell you that bad apples were between partisans too. They committed many crimes. (you know, today in Italy there's still hot grudge between left and right wings).

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Manu-6S
08-20-2006, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by LEBillfish:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Ares_336sqn:
Ok, then lets do the atrocities, so that we finish the ............

OR............

Lets all continue hammering at something that really had little to nothing to do with the tread, let alone the film being it really was nothing more then a propaganda piece tp sooth the rage of the homefront.....As in reality those arguing this....

Are simply spoiling for a fight, so obviously lacking in their own lives that they use a simple thread to soapbox upon, then try to be the reason to close it as though their thoughts and opinions outweigh all others........

Sorry, yet it will take a lot more book burning and thread locking to control the thoughts of others.......Make your points, then drop it. Anything more is fruitless as you'll not change history 60 years past, anymore then you'll change the future trying to do it from a flight sim forum.

If that serious about it, as we all should be, then such time should be devoted to current events and contacting our own governments then posting here about it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You are right; I'll stop http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif

Ares_336sqn
08-20-2006, 09:02 AM
The voice of reason.
But reason has nothing to do with this subject.Or isn't this clear enough yet...

SkyChimp
08-20-2006, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/images/41377000/jpg/_41377687_child.jpg
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

If US troops found that child, they would have taken care of him. If it were a Chinese child found by the Japanese, they would have stomped him, or bayonetted him.


Curiously, you can't see the difference between those truths.

Rjel
08-20-2006, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
There is more in history than that you see on TV, ydon't you know?

Sure there is. But I haven't seen anything in your posts that is any more than opinion and second hand information either. How about some hard evidence? All I've seen in your posts is your attempts to sway other posters' opinions to match your own.

Manu-6S
08-20-2006, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Rjel:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Manu-6S:
There is more in history than that you see on TV, ydon't you know?

Sure there is. But I haven't seen anything in your posts that is any more than opinion and second hand information either. How about some hard evidence? All I've seen in your posts is your attempts to sway other posters' opinions to match your own. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

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

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Rjel
08-20-2006, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/351.gif

Is that really the best reply you can come up with? It doesn't make your arguments any more credible.

Dtools4fools
08-20-2006, 06:48 PM
<pre class="ip-ubbcode-code-pre"> Saw a show on the retaking of Manila Philippines...Death toll?
1,000 U.S. (though may have been more can't recall number yet 2,000 max)
16,000 Japanese
100,000 Philippino's(sp?) </pre>

Numbers are about correct.

1010 KIA and about 5500 wounded.
Japanese Navy had about 16'000 around, of which about 2000 on the islands of Manila Bay, rest in the city. Close to 4000 Army Troops in town as well, so around 18'000 in town in total of which not many survived...

Of the Filipino civilian casualties, number is about right as well, total of all bombardement plus killing by Japanese soldiers.

City centre and areas close by were leveled. Second most destroyed capital city of WWII.
****

Manu-6S
08-21-2006, 08:27 AM
Ufff... this is the last time I write in this thread: somebody still don't understand what I mean.

Simply I do not stand for one side, Allies or Axis, but I'm only trying to say that every side committed crimes.

And I'm condamning EVERY ONE of these. Insteed people here keep justifing the crimes of their OWN side.

Chimp, I'm sure the average of american soldiers (because here you are talking about PTO) were more good then the japanese soldiers. Infact the american culture and the japanese one were A LOT different.

While japanese culture was something medieval (with not offence, of course!) american one is known for its ideals of freedom and human rights: but is it known because the ideals are really honoured or only for propaganda?

Just look inside you and ask yourself: Allies were really SO good compared to enemy? (don't look at the number, saying "they were more bad than us" it's only hypocrisy).

Chimp, I't true what you say about chinese child, but let me ask you (and btw that is Hiroshima's child):

Can a child and his mother escape or hide from a bayonette? Yes
Can they escape from this?
http://peacenowar.net/newpeace/images/stories/nuke.jpg

Was THIS (http://www.mctv.ne.jp/%7Ebigapple/) really necessary?
If you say "YES" I'm really afraid because it means you didn't learn nothing from the past and out world will never change.

Or maybe my culture (the culture of the bombed people) is a lot different from yours (the culture of bombing people).

You said neo-moralist: yes I can be, but this mean you are a old-moralist, and usually the New is better 'cause it can see the past and learn from that.

Yes, maybe in those times strafing civilans should be a normal thing: but simply the pilot could CHOOSE to not press the trigger. He pressed it so IMO, he's a criminal... this by eyes of a man who live in the 3th millenium.

But in our times thing are not different: I repeat, is not criminal to fire a missile inside a market plenty of civilians to kill ONLY ONE man? (oh, otherwise, it's a death sentence WITHOUT trial). PLEASE, ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

It's not criminal to put an entire nation on fire only for economic interest?
If the answer is no than it's the confirmation that the HIGH IDEALS of the free world are only BS.

Rjel, if you know italian I can link you a good site there there is a collection of stories about allied war crimes on WW2: here (http://rassegnastampa.totustuus.it/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=20)

I laught to your post because it's the tipical statement to discredit someone. Something like "you're a lier if you don't show proofs"; I know you will never accept these proofs, because you can say (like a lot of journalist and some professors too, mainly in US) "these proofs are propaganda", "they aren't real stuff", "YOU ARE A REVISIONIST".

I'll never say anybody something like that, because I'm just sure we're living in a fake world, where DISINFORMATION is the bridle to keep the power.

BTW in that link (and in those inside), you will find a lot of book titles (international authors, but italian titles, sorry)

And if you want to have informations about PIPPO just search on google "guerra mondiale aereo pippo": you will find I'm not a lier, nor my granma was. (ops, is: she is still alive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I'm end. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOW I'm improving my english, what do you think? Can I reach a C?

PS: there's another good italian site http://www.giuliettochiesa.it/.

Maj_Solo
08-21-2006, 12:01 PM
It's ok. They shouldn't be near their fishing boats. Maybe one can make aicraft petrol out of fish oil? What's the octane? The allies did the same **** before landing in normandie. How many French civilians died in the process of shooting up the infra structure. Shooting in the industrial areas and ports is ok. Shooting on the suburb when aunt Marie is drinking tea, is not nice. If it is obviously a civilian place then leave them alone or try miss them if the enemy mix civilian and military. Taking away the food source might make the population rise against the governement. But before taking that step the attacker really needs to be sure he evaluated the situation correctly or there will be a lash back.

rnzoli
08-21-2006, 01:29 PM
I don't know if this has been said before, but the full mission builder in IL2 has got 2 types of fishing boats, an unarmed one, and an armed one. IIRC they look the same, but the armed one will fericiously shoot with small caliber weapons at any aircraft passing by.

han freak solo
08-21-2006, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
http://peacenowar.net/newpeace/images/stories/nuke.jpg


That's like saying Nazi. This thread is dead.

Rjel
08-21-2006, 03:54 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Rjel, if you know italian I can link you a good site there there is a collection of stories about allied war crimes on WW2: here (http://rassegnastampa.totustuus.it/modules.php?name=News&file=categories&op=newindex&catid=20)

I laught to your post because it's the tipical statement to discredit someone. Something like "you're a lier if you don't show proofs"; I know you will never accept these proofs, because you can say (like a lot of journalist and some professors too, mainly in US) "these proofs are propaganda", "they aren't real stuff", "YOU ARE A REVISIONIST".

I'll never say anybody something like that, because I'm just sure we're living in a fake world, where DISINFORMATION is the bridle to keep the power.

BTW in that link (and in those inside), you will find a lot of book titles (international authors, but italian titles, sorry)

And if you want to have informations about PIPPO just search on google "guerra mondiale aereo pippo": you will find I'm not a lier, nor my granma was. (ops, is: she is still alive http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif )

I'm end. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

WOW I'm improving my english, what do you think? Can I reach a C?

PS: there's another good italian site http://www.giuliettochiesa.it/.

No, unfortunately, my grasp of Italian isn't as good as your English. At the same time, my asking for proof is not the same as calling you or anyone else a liar. Or stupid. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

I think too this thread has run it's course. I will say in closing that I don't and neither do I think anyone who has written in this thread in "defense" of the P-51 pilot in the video, has claimed that each and every pilot who flew for the U.S.A. in WWII was a tried and true hero incapable of misdeeds or even criminal acts. I don't think anyone could say that of any nation or people. But I will say, that the average military pilot produced by the U.S. during WWII was the best this country had to offer at the time. They were asked to help defeat an enemy who wanted to enslave the rest of mankind. Had the Axis powers done so, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Deadmeat313
08-21-2006, 04:04 PM
This video gave me a great insight into why and how the US beat the Japanese.

They obviously has both Limited Ammo and Realistic Gunnery switched off!

And, you'll note that most of the time they use Wonder Woman view.

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

SkyChimp
08-21-2006, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Manu-6S:
Was THIS really necessary?
If you say "YES" I'm really afraid because it means you didn't learn nothing from the past and out world will never change.



If THIS (http://www.waszak.com/japanww2.htm) was the alternative, the answer is defintely yes.

And spare me the "I'm afraid" bit. That's the "victim" mentality. Japan sown the wind, and they reaped the whirlwind. But not as badly as they could have. You should be thankful for it.

joeap
08-22-2006, 03:04 AM
To put things in perspective, I am NOT defending everything the Allies did, in fact a lot of what happened was unnecessary for winning the war and I am ashamed these things happened. Consider the following pages though.

A WWII table (http://bss.sfsu.edu/tygiel/Hist427/texts/wwiicasualty.htm)

Another WWII page (http://web.jjay.cuny.edu/%7Ejobrien/reference/ob62.html)

These two have the figures that I've seen the most and some surprises.

Wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II_casualties)

Although some discrepancies with the other two shows all the sources so a bit more reliable than other Wikipedia pages. Also has some telling graphs.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5e/WorldWarII-DeathsByAlliance-Piechart.png

So who was disproportionate? Granted if you pick out the US (or Canada and Australia for that matter, the former which did participate in the bombing campaign against Germany) and compare it alone to Germany or of course Japan it seems the situation is the reverse. That does not make sense as the US was part of a coalition however as Commonwealth and Russian posters like to state rightfully (note to our Russian friends, the USSR was responsible for more civilian deaths, both Axis and Soviet, that the Western Allies). http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif

Just to put things in perspective, of course if we created graphs for some current or recent events they might not be to the taste of some of our American posters here but I'll leave that subject alone. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/halo.gif

KIMURA
08-22-2006, 03:54 AM
hmm, I wonder how's about the mods? Other freds with much lesser political offences against each other will be shot down faster U can see, but this highlight fred don't. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

CHDT
08-22-2006, 05:01 AM
As scary as the Morgenthau plan for Germany, the Downfall Operation with the chemical bombings of Japanese cities:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Downfall