Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: SIG220 on March 11, 2008, 06:08:21 PM
-
_____________________________ ________
It appears that history is being re-written:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm
Yesterday was the 63rd Anniversary of the Firebombing of Tokyo.
_____________________________ __________________________
-
i don't know what to say.......Bataan death march, rape of nanking? help me out here.
-
Shit happens.
-
I got news for you, we fire bombed japan so badly we only had a very* short limited list for citys to drop the nukes on, and we still did it.
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
Ah yes, the sins of this great nation. :rock
-
I guess that what happens when you start a war. Bad things happen in a war of survival.
-
I got news for you, we fire bombed japan so badly we only had a very* short limited list for citys to drop the nukes on, and we still did it.
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
Ah yes, the sins of this great nation. :rock
But why did the Japanese so quickly sue for peace after we nuked them???
_____________________________ _____________________________ ___
-
I got news for you, we fire bombed japan so badly we only had a very* short limited list for citys to drop the nukes on, and we still did it.
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
Ah yes, the sins of this great nation. :rock
Better them than us. Oh well, sucks for them.
-
No war in the history of the world and all time has ever been won without the use of Total War.
-
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
well if your smart that means don't fork with america, but unfortunately times have changed now americans have become soft and weak, they cannot even waterboard people that want and do kill americans.
-
I don't think that's true Laser. But in the case of all out war of survival, all means will be used.
-
_____________________________ _______________________
Here is a photo taken of Tokyo during that infamous B-29 raid of 63 years ago:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg/645px-Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg)
-
But why did the Japanese so quickly sue for peace after we nuked them???
_____________________________ _____________________________ ___
Because, if your enemy is willing to firebomb every person you know and love, half of them already dead, then they start droping nuke after nuke on basicly already decimated citys, it kinda makes you wounder whats left to fight for.(if everyones dead)
and then we use the logic of we did it to save our more of our lifes.
But please tell me of a single kid or woman in america that was burned alive, vaporised..or left with a country neck deep in nucular fallout, for years and years and years to come.
They still suffer, because of it.
Every kid born without arms, or flippers so on and so forth, you can simply say "hey kid, better you than me" because obviously you and your children are more important than another's.
The mainstay of the japanese people as humans, are forever changed, they are mutated, radiated..it doesnt stop, and is passed on generation to generation, i hope you never find yourself a nice asian wife, and wounder why your son is born without alot of his bodys parts because your wife's the daughter of a japanese family that moved to america in the 50's so on and so forth.
Horrible, all of it.
-
Horrible, all of it.
Maybe it was just "bad karma"
-
They still suffer, because of it.
Every kid born without arms, or flippers so on and so forth, you can simply say "hey kid, better you than me" because obviously you and your children are more important than another's.
The mainstay of the japanese people as humans, are forever changed, they are mutated, radiated..it doesnt stop, and is passed on generation to generation, i hope you never find yourself a nice asian wife, and wounder why your son is born without alot of his bodys parts because your wife's the daughter of a japanese family that moved to america in the 50's so on and so forth.
Horrible, all of it.
I must agree that Japanese women have truly mutated in very strange ways.
What have we done to their gene pool???
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/136797633_72bf353ef1.jpg)
-
No war in the history of the world and all time has ever been won without the use of Total War.
Define total war.
As a counter point the independence of the USA was won without turning England into rubble
-
We did some pretty nasty things to the british and loyalists here in the states.
Nuke, if that's true, name it.
-
No matter how civil we try to act, we are still just violent apes with big brains. Accept and embrace it I say.
-
Define total war.
As a counter point the independence of the USA was won without turning England into rubble
Well, but the objective of that war was much different than WWII.
In WWII, the objective was to overthrow the fascist states of Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. These two governments had to be overthrown in order to make the world safe
In the Revolutionary war, all Americans wanted was their independence. Nothing more.
-
I must agree that Japanese women have truly mutated in very strange ways.
What have we done to their gene pool???
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/136797633_72bf353ef1.jpg)
HOW!?
Look at her, she probably has a tail. :aok
-
We did some pretty nasty things to the british and loyalists here in the states.
Nuke, if that's true, name it.
The first Gulf war comes to mind. The war of 1812 (maybe not a great example), Spanish American war, Falklands War.
-
Yeah, all of those came to GREAT conclusions. :rofl
-
Laser, I know what you are saying though.
The Falklands was won and the Brits didn't start lobbing nukes on Argentina. You know what I mean? :)
-
Laser, I know what you are saying though.
The Falklands was won and the Brits didn't start lobbing nukes on Argentina. You know what I mean? :)
You are comparing Apples and Oranges here, though. Much different types of wars.
Surely you must agree that the military dictatorship of Japan had to be overthrown? Looks at what an utterly democratic and peaceful nation Japan has now become since the war.
-
Sig, I was replying to Laser...
I am all for what we did to help put an end to the war with Japan.
-
I don't see history being rewritten. The article was factual. Is it wrong to point out that the bombings were horrible or that many died?
-
Hey MT, I agree. I read the linked story and thought the same. Now, let's have a beer when I get to Idaho!
:)
-
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
Ah yes, the sins of this great nation. :rock
"GET THE **** OFF MY OBSTACLE PRIVATE PYLE"
-
I got news for you, we fire bombed japan so badly we only had a very* short limited list for citys to drop the nukes on, and we still did it.
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
Ah yes, the sins of this great nation. :rock
Boo freaking hoo hoo.
Those poor Japanese, forced to invade their neighbors by the heartless USA :rolleyes:
-
...and we'll nuke em again too if they get lippy! Japan is near the bottom of my Countries That Need Nuked list, but it's written in pencil, it can always be rearranged! :t
-
You can try to make others believe that the US was evil in nuking the japs.... but the truth is, none of it would have happened if the japs did not start a war with the US. I feel no pity for the japs of that period.
-
Laser, I know what you are saying though.
The Falklands was won and the Brits didn't start lobbing nukes on Argentina. You know what I mean? :)
Argentina still claims the Falklands as their own land.
-
I don't see history being rewritten. The article was factual. Is it wrong to point out that the bombings were horrible or that many died?
The article refers to American war crimes, and that it was an act of "Terror". Just read the text next to the photo.
Was the United States Air Force the original "terrorist" organization???
-
I'm really
80 Characters??????
-
You must be reading a different article.
While critics in Japan and elsewhere decry such attacks as war crimes, others say the Tokyo assault took place against a backdrop of the increasing brutality of total war fueled by the militarism of the Axis powers.
hardly a scathing attack.
and the use of the word terror might be just the best way to describe the thoughts of the survivors while the entire city burned around them. Yep... terror is the right word. Can't think of a better one. Maybe in this case the word is used appropriately, like Freud said, "sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."
-
And Nuke, You're buying.
-
I got news for you, we fire bombed japan so badly we only had a very* short limited list for citys to drop the nukes on, and we still did it.
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
Ah yes, the sins of this great nation. :rock
Perhaps you should read of the Bataan Death March, treatment of Chinese civilians by the japs, treatment of Allied PoW's by the japs, treatment of Vietnamese by the japs, treatment of the citizens of Papau New Guine by the japs, etc. Then tell me we were wrong for what we did.
The fire bombings and nuclear bombings resulted in one thing. The elimination for the potential of over a million American casualties should we have had to invade their home islands.
I gotta say it, you diddlying revisionists make me sick.
-
Lasersailer - your point makes no sense. The Argies lost a war. Total war was not used. Whether they claim it makes no difference to anything.
-
Got to admit the Argentinians came to the table with a full set of balls for that fight. Put up a fair scrap too if I recall.
-
Anyone who reads, let alone quote, Common Dreams dot com, is an idjit. So brush it off. Bleeding Heart Liberal Site hiding behind the intellectual disguise of "progressive" politics.
-
Got to admit the Argentinians came to the table with a full set of balls for that fight. Put up a fair scrap too if I recall.
They had balls, but really they got their arses handed to them pretty thoroughly. They did score a couple of exocet hits of Brit ships hits, if I recall.
The Brits came from the other side of the world with no land support and just cleaned their clocks. That's the Britain that I admire.
-
They had balls, but really they got their arses handed to them pretty thoroughly. They did score a couple of exocet hits of Brit ships hits, if I recall.
The Brits came from the other side of the world with no land support and just cleaned their clocks. That's the Britain that I admire.
The worst damage done to the British ground forces were when those two waves of old American McDonnell Douglas A-4C Skyhawks hit those two landing ships full of British Army troops at Bluff Cove. The Skyhawks were all carrying 1,000 lb bombs.
In order to make the long trip to the Falklands and back, the Skyhawks had to both carry external fuel tanks, and also refuel in the air as well. Here is a photo of one Argentine SkyHawk filling up just before entering combat. ( Note the 1,000 lb bomb )
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/30/A-4C_Tte_casco.jpg)
Here is a photo of one of the wrecked landing ships, after it was abandoned:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/df/RFA_Sir_Tristram.1982.jpg/800px-RFA_Sir_Tristram.1982.jpg)
In a strange twist of fate, 16% of the deaths suffered on the British ships ( a total of 14 men ), were Naval cooks. And that is because two of the British ships suffered direct hits to their Galley.
Only 3 Falklands civilians died in the war. All were women hit by friendly fire from the British forces. No civilians were ever harmed by the invading Argentine Army.
Argentina only had 5 Exocet missiles that could be launched from planes at the start of the war. The use of just those 5 missiles resulted in two sunk British ships. If they would of had a decent supply of these missiles available, the war could have had a much different outcome. France refused to sell any more of the missiles to Argentina, once the war broke out.
_____________________________ __________________________
-
No war in the history of the world and all time has ever been won without the use of Total War.
This again? *sigh* Some never learn. Once again I present: The Cold War (at which point LS will probably once again attempt to redefine "Total War"). You're young yet. :D
-
Define total war.
As a counter point the independence of the USA was won without turning England into rubble
Shhhh ... he missed that part in 101. ;)
-
Shhhh ... he missed that part in 101. ;)
one O one
otherwise they don't get it, oldman.
-
The Falklands was a closely run thing - the Argie pilots were gutsy as all hell, they scored plenty of hits but alot of their bombs didn't arm properly because of the low level attacks in San Carlos bay, and the bulk of thier forces were conscripts
If the Argies had hit or disabled HMS Hermes, or HMS Invincible who knows what would've happened
O/T it was the invasion by the Russians which forced the Japanese hand in 1945
Tronsky
-
i don't know what to say.......Bataan death march, rape of nanking? help me out here.
Two wrongs do not make a right.
-
The Falklands was a closely run thing - the Argie pilots were gutsy as all hell, they scored plenty of hits but alot of their bombs didn't arm properly because of the low level attacks in San Carlos bay, and the bulk of thier forces were conscripts
If the Argies had hit or disabled HMS Hermes, or HMS Invincible who knows what would've happened
O/T it was the invasion by the Russians which forced the Japanese hand in 1945
Tronsky
Yeah..I'm sure the fact that their navy had been destroyed, US subs had effectively stopped their
merchant traffic. their cities were going up like roman candles and they had lost most of their best
troops in the island campaigns had nothing to do with it.
It was those brave Rooskies pigpiling Manchuria in the last 2 weeks that really sealed the deal. :rolleyes:
-
____________________________________________________
Here is a photo taken of Tokyo during that infamous B-29 raid of 63 years ago:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/90/Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg/645px-Firebombing_of_Tokyo.jpg)
Looks to me like a job well done. Congrats to the airmen for risking their lives to save ours. :aok
-
Shortened topic to placate those who are going ballistic over the 80 character topic limit.
-
Got to admit the Argentinians came to the table with a full set of balls for that fight. Put up a fair scrap too if I recall.
(http://www.combatreform2.com/argentineskyhawkattack.jpg)
Takes some pretty big ones to fly in this low (note the plane on the RIGHT).....and looks like he's taking some fairly severe ack.
-
Two wrongs do not make a right.
Formal Surrender pretty much cleared that up.
-
Arlo clearly forgot that we've already discussed how he was wrong about the cold war. No need to rehash it yet again.
Even though the Falklands never came to a great conclusion, they can be viewed as a single battle, not a war.
My point still stands.
-
Shortened topic to placate those who are going ballistic over the 80 character topic limit.
Only 80 characters for the topic? :D
Here is an interesting article describing the Falkands War.
http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html (http://www.airpower.au.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/fal02/corum.html)
-
Random thoughts:
I am under the impression that Japan surrendered before the atomic drops. Was accepted after the atomic drops. :confused:
History is writtin by the conquerers.
Ancient times it meant death to all and salt the fields.
Firebombing entire cities seemed to stop the natzis and the imperials, brutal means to an end.
As far as war crimes go, perhaps no nation has commited more than Britannia. Think of the nations and cultures they have destroyed.
Total victory has its price.
Of all the horrors of WW2, the realization of "War Industry/Economy" is perhaps our worst legacy.
Not wanting to pick on any one nation, I would sum this up by saying the nations of men have been destroying/stealing anything and everything on the other side of "the line in the sand" since the beginnings of organized villages. "its ok, they are not one of us"
Its a human animal thing called greed & insecurity.
See u in the cartoon skies!
-
I am under the impression that Japan surrendered before the atomic drops. Was accepted after the atomic drops. :confused:
Not quite, Japan did not capitulate until August 14th, 1945.
Be assured that the war between the Allies and the Axis was a world war and that roughly 72 million human beings perished violently during that cataclysm. To denouce the victorious allies as war criminals and terrorist serves two purposes. It makes the dencouncers look like the absolutley pathetic morons they truly are, and it lays unacceptable disgrace and utter disrespect on every allied combatant that sacrificed during that war.
-
Random thoughts:
I am under the impression that Japan surrendered before the atomic drops. Was accepted after the atomic drops. :confused:
History is writtin by the conquerers.
I'd like to see a source to that. Probably Japanese if there was one... :rolleyes:
IMO, the japs did not get anywhere near what they deserved for starting that war. If I had been President, we would have turned their home islands into a glowing crater.
-
Argentina only had 5 Exocet missiles that could be launched from planes at the start of the war. The use of just those 5 missiles resulted in two sunk British ships. If they would of had a decent supply of these missiles available, the war could have had a much different outcome. France refused to sell any more of the missiles to Argentina, once the war broke out.
And British intelligence stopped the availability of Exorcets around the world to stop them falling into Argentine hands, they also went under cover to pretend to sell Exorcets to Argentina to stop them looking elsewhere. France rightly stopped shipments as they are in NATO. Similarly, you could argue how the conflict could have been different if the RN hadn't disbanded their large conventional aircraft carriers?
I think one of the key moments often overlooked was the sinking of the Belgrano by the nuclear sub HMS Conquerer, this proved that the British meant business to protect the task force. The Vulcan Black Buck missions also showed the Argie scum that RAF bombers were able to strike at that distance from bases in England, and hit mainland Argentina if necessary.
-
Here's the interesting modern twist to the historical facts about the end of the war. Today, Japanese schools DO NOT TEACH the events of the Second World War as we have been taught here in the US. This is due in part by the Japanese sense of honor and nationalism, and also as an indirect result of the sense of shame the Japanese felt by their surrender.
Interestingly enough, during both tours of duty I had in Japan (1993-1995, and 2001-2004) We were specifcally instructed to avoid talking about the war at all, due to the shame factor, and their own version of events.
Japan still suffers today from the crimes of it's past. China, the Koreas, and several other pacific island nations still have a deep mistrust against it.
As for US conduct during the war, it should be pointed out that Japan's tactics (influenced by it's ingrained culture) left us very little choice in which to end the war. I don't remember which island campaign it was, but I recall Japanese civilians threw themselves to their deaths, rather than suffer the dishonor of being "captured" by the Americans.
I also recall reading about how millions of Japanese civilians were conscripted into the army and began training with spears in the hopes of killing just one American.
However, right or wrong. We live with the result. I can only imagine what Harry S. Truman was feeling once he found out what he really had unleashed upon the world.
-
IMO, the japs did not get anywhere near what they deserved for starting that war. If I had been President, we would have turned their home islands into a glowing crater.
We all hope you will never even dream of becoming a president.
-
I believe the incident or island you are thinking about was Saipan. And yes they did, the civilians were so indoctrinated with propaganda that many committed suicide by throwing themselves and their children off of cliffs.
Also in the large majority of the battles in the Pacific you have to remember the Japanese never surrendered. It was a rarity for the U.S. to take any prisoners because of the Japanese honor code which held it as a disgrace to themselves, their family, and nation to surrender. According to their code the Allied POWs were not even human in their eyes because they surrendered which led to their mindset where they treated the POWs inhumanely. It also led to the Japanese garrisons fighting to the last man.
In the battle of Saipan almost the entire garrison of 30,000 fought to the death (roughly 1,000 were taken prisoner I believe). This is comparison to 10,364 Americans (out of 71,000) who were killed or wounded. If you look at other battles you will see the same pattern repeated where entire Japanese garrisons fought to the death instead of surrendering. Very different than the Germans and the war in Europe.
-
And British intelligence stopped the availability of Exorcets around the world to stop them falling into Argentine hands, they also went under cover to pretend to sell Exorcets to Argentina to stop them looking elsewhere. France rightly stopped shipments as they are in NATO. Similarly, you could argue how the conflict could have been different if the RN hadn't disbanded their large conventional aircraft carriers?
I think one of the key moments often overlooked was the sinking of the Belgrano by the nuclear sub HMS Conquerer, this proved that the British meant business to protect the task force. The Vulcan Black Buck missions also showed the Argie scum that RAF bombers were able to strike at that distance from bases in England, and hit mainland Argentina if necessary.
I was a junior in high school at the time and followed it very closely. At the very beginning, before the Brits mobilized, my math teacher told me that the Brits meant business.
I remember how outraged I was that the French sent a team of technicians to Argentina from the beginning and through the war in order to help them get the Exocets operational. I still can't believe they did that. Cost some good Brits their lives.
You guys proved that you still had a backbone. Your military went around the globe and fought a pretty good Argentine airforce from the sea with very few planes. Really, it is pretty amazing to me.
-
America did the world a great favour nuking Japan.
Japan did not surrender, the world was sick of the war they started. Japan also committed attrocious war cimes against both military and civilian prisoners. Japan also used biological weapons against civilian populations in China, they were trying to use such weapons against the US and if they had nuclear capability would have certainly used that as well (they were trying to use dirty bombs towards the end).
Anyone who thinks the nuking and firebombing was unnecessary is some sort of left wing pacifist lesbian man hating tree hugger. It saved allied lives in not requiring the invasion of mainland japan, and at that time allied lives were all that mattered to us. If japan didn't want to suffer civilian casualties they shouldn't have started a war they couldn't finish.
-
Here we go again...
This gets regurgitated more than the "If WWII had been an RTS" or a "Voss" thread.
War is supposed to be brutal. It is unfair. It is what makes it a thing to avoid until all other options are tried first.
Any other of the major 'players' of that war would have used the Atomic Bomb had they had it first and the ability to deliver it. It is used to wipe out the enemy's population. It is to send the strongest possible signal for the enemy to end its war against the friendlies as the most pro-war enemy fanatic could not hope of victory. Heck the survival of their country's population comes into question.
Japan would have used it on the US and possibly England. Germany would have used it on the USSR, England, and the US. England would have used it on Germany. The USSR would have used it on Germany and possibly on Japan.
The same goes for firebombing. Firebombing is the "poor man's" atomic bomb attack. Had England had an atomic bomb they would have dropped it on Dresden instead of the firebombing. Germany on London (if they had a heavy bomber).
Now having said that, do I feel sorry for the innocent civilians that have to pay the ultimate price for their leader's bad judgment for entering that war? Sure do. Wars are rarely 'clean'.
War is dirty, vicious, deadly, unfair, and brutal. That's the way it has been, is, and always will be.
-
I was a junior in high school at the time and followed it very closely. At the very beginning, before the Brits mobilized, my math teacher told me that the Brits meant business.
I remember how outraged I was that the French sent a team of technicians to Argentina from the beginning and through the war in order to help them get the Exocets operational. I still can't believe they did that. Cost some good Brits their lives.
You guys proved that you still had a backbone. Your military went around the globe and fought a pretty good Argentine airforce from the sea with very few planes. Really, it is pretty amazing to me.
you should better remember those technicians where in Argentina before start of the war and how they where forbidden to leave Argentina.
-
you should better remember those technicians where in Argentina before start of the war and how they where forbidden to leave Argentina.
Hey Straffo! <S>
I did not know that. That makes more sense to me.
-
I'd like to see a source to that. Probably Japanese if there was one... :rolleyes:
IMO, the japs did not get anywhere near what they deserved for starting that war. If I had been President, we would have turned their home islands into a glowing crater.
I by all means am no history prof, but this is from wilkpedia:
"By the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, the Japan campaign was underway as Allied forces closed in on the home islands. By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms which would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on the 2nd of February, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand - the proposals contained all had the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender, although the eventual August settlement did keep the position of emperor in place[5]."
Personal opinion:
If my enemy wants to talk peace & atone for the crimes against me, I would listen. The firebombing drove the point home, the atomic drop was not neccessary. Reminder this my personal opinion, someone who is 100% detached.
-
I by all means am no history prof, but this is from wilkpedia:
"By the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, the Japan campaign was underway as Allied forces closed in on the home islands. By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms which would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on the 2nd of February, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand - the proposals contained all had the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender, although the eventual August settlement did keep the position of emperor in place[5]."
Personal opinion:
If my enemy wants to talk peace & atone for the crimes against me, I would listen. The firebombing drove the point home, the atomic drop was not neccessary. Reminder this my personal opinion, someone who is 100% detached.
Yeah wikipedia is a devine source (not).
it's well known that the civilian government was pushing for surrender but the japanese military were still hanging out, even after the first bomb on hiroshima the military did not want to surrender. They wanted to go down in a blaze of glory, devil be damned if they took the civies with them.
-
Personal opinion:
the atomic drop was not neccessary.
dropīs, not drop.
and what SkyRock said:
"Two wrongs do not make a right."
-
and what SkyRock said:
"Two wrongs do not make a right."
Yeah, but two nukes makes the war over. Good call!
If Germany had nukes, they would not have stopped using them until they conquered the world. We used them to end the war THEN we went on to rebuild Europe and Japan and let them run themselves.
-
"Operation Olympic"/"Operation Coronet" was already on paper and the plans to invade Japan had been laid out. The best estimates, based on prevoius battles in the Pacific, pointed at over 1,000,000 US losses alone. This does NOT include an estimated 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 Japanese military & civillian losses.
The option to use nuclear weapons technology to bring the quickest end to the Pacific war as possible, in the end, saved millions of lives on both sides, and Truman knew it.
I wouldn't want to have been in Truman's shoes. The navigator of the Enola Gay lives 18 miles from me...I wouldn't want to have been in his shoes either.
For those who cannot grasp the meaning of "Total War", it means a country or entity using all or most all of the weapons/manpower/technology that it has available to it at that point in history.
The American Union forces in the Civil War introducing multiple shot repeating rifles to it's troops at the beginning of the Atlanta Campaign is an example. American forces using nuclear weapon at the end of WWII is another.
The United States has had nerve agents, poison gas, and other chemical weapons, but up to this point in time have refused to use them. This is an example of an exception to "Total War"
Those implying that the US used nukes AFTER Japan surrendered (:rolleyes:) are either trolling, or just plain ignorant of history.
If anything, I hope threads like this sends people scurrying to their local libraries and Books-A-Millions to learn more about history :aok
I have no idea what school districts are teaching in other countries, but American school districts are woefully lacking in teaching American/World history from about 1900 to present. I hope that changes.
ROX
-
I must agree that Japanese women have truly mutated in very strange ways.
What have we done to their gene pool???
(http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/136797633_72bf353ef1.jpg)
Who is she? She's gorgeous.
-
NUKE
IF?
How do you know all this things what didnt happen?
we are speaking about real History, things done, not IF's.
-
NUKE
IF?
How do you know all this things what didnt happen?
we are speaking about real History, things done, not IF's.
Well, lets see..
Germany did not hold out on anything, They killed millions of people. I guess that if they had an A-Bomb, they would have been nice and never used it....even though they used every other weapon they could come up with in any attempt to win a war THEY started.
-
We all hope you will never even dream of becoming a president.
Don't worry, I don't want to nuke Finland. Maybe Iran and North Korea, but thats about it. :t
-
The drops WERE necessary. The Japanese Army's leadership had no intentions of allowing the civilian government to surrender. Members of that government that made attempts to meet with the emperor to try to persuade him to surrender were summarily assassinated by the Army.
I suppose we could have done the "honorable" thing and gone ahead with Operation Downfall, the invasion of Japan. Secretary of War Stimson's staff, working off of information provided by military experts who had studied American casualty rates in the Philippines and on Okinawa, estimated that American forces would suffer between 400,000 and 800,000 casualties, and five to ten million Japanese.
Much of Japan's military-industrial base consisted of cottage industries. There were few nerve centers to strike. Japanese civilian centers were constructed largely of wooden structures, with internal walls consisting largely of paper. Bombing attacks during any period of high-winds would have produced the same results as attacks deliberately designed to burn out these civilian population centers.
With an intransigent and brutal Army leadership bent on fighting to the last Japanese, with 65 divisions being equipped and trained to resist the landing, with tens of thousands of aircraft being hoarded for massed Kamikazi attacks designed to overwhelm U.S. fleet defenses, and horrendous casualties foreseen as a means of forcing the Allies to end the fighting on terms more favorable to the Japanese, the U.S. had little choice but to use any means at its disposal to force an end to the struggle.
Considering that the Japanese had treated her subject peoples with unwarrented brutality, had killed millions of Chinese civilians in order to terrorize them into submission, had tortured and executed Allied prisoners out-of-hand, had used other prisoners in hideous scientific experiments, and had forced hundreds of thousands of Chinese women to become prostitutes to service the Japanese fighting man, to say nothing of the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed by Japanese bombing of civilian centers and in reprisals for partisan attacks......considering all of that....and much more.....rational students of history can only conclude that the Japanese military was fully as brutish as that of the Nazis.
Thus, your sympathies for the Japanese are misplaced, and your condemnation of the actions of your own country is unseemly and ill-informed. I have little respect for a nation that refuses to come to grips with the evils of its own past, and instead continues to portray itself as a civilized nation that was the victim of undeserved violence.
-
Well, lets see..
Germany did not hold out on anything, They killed millions of people. I guess that if they had an A-Bomb, they would have been nice and never used it....even though they used every other weapon they could come up with in any attempt to win a war THEY started.
Unlike in The Great War, the Germans didn't use chemical weapons during WWII even if they had them at their disposal. They considered it too cruel a weapon. During the development of the A-bomb it was though to be just a very powerful explosive in military circles. The horrific after effects were not widely known.
-
Unlike in The Great War, the Germans didn't use chemical weapons during WWII even if they had them at their disposal. They considered it too cruel a weapon. During the development of the A-bomb it was though to be just a very powerful explosive in military circles. The horrific after effects were not widely known.
Nope, they saved the chem weapons for the civilians. :rolleyes:
-
Unlike in The Great War, the Germans didn't use chemical weapons during WWII even if they had them at their disposal. They considered it too cruel a weapon. During the development of the A-bomb it was though to be just a very powerful explosive in military circles. The horrific after effects were not widely known.
Unlike the great war, Germany decided that killing millions of people was not too cruel. Is a gas chamber cruel?
Probably not in you mind.
If Germany had nukes in WWII, do you actually think that they would not have used them?
-
Are you looking to get banned again?
They didn't use chemical weapons on civilians. Zyklon-B was a pesticide ... it was cheaper, and it wasn't weaponized. The Jews and other undesirables were not considered people by the Nazis.
I'm quite convinced the Germans would have used the A-bomb if they had it ... but you are still wrong in your assumption that "Germany did not hold out on anything". They did.
-
Are you looking to get banned again?
LMAO from a shade no less.
-
You calling me a shade? A shade of what?
-
I by all means am no history prof, but this is from wilkpedia:
"By the end of 1944 and the beginning of 1945, the Japan campaign was underway as Allied forces closed in on the home islands. By the end of January 1945, some Japanese officials close to the Emperor were seeking surrender terms which would protect his position. These proposals, sent through both British and American channels were assembled by General Douglas MacArthur into a 40-page dossier and given to President Roosevelt on the 2nd of February, two days before the Yalta conference. The dossier was reportedly dismissed by Roosevelt out of hand - the proposals contained all had the condition that Emperor's position would be assured, albeit possibly as a puppet ruler. At this time, however, the allied policy was to accept only an unconditional offer of surrender, although the eventual August settlement did keep the position of emperor in place[5]."
Personal opinion:
If my enemy wants to talk peace & atone for the crimes against me, I would listen. The firebombing drove the point home, the atomic drop was not neccessary. Reminder this my personal opinion, someone who is 100% detached.
Yes its nice that the enemy wants to surrender but that kind of surrender means he gets to keep all the land he conqured and that means he can still run it the way he wants and that means more civilian deaths for the chinese, and other nations still under control by Japan at that time. Sounds more like an armistice than an unconditional surrender.
I'm glad we drop the nukes b/c that saved millions of lives for both America and Japan, and maybe Russia, and also most Japanese didn't want to surrender and there were attempts by Japanese generals to overthrow the Emperor and fight to the bitter end.
-
"Operation Olympic"/"Operation Coronet" was already on paper and the plans to invade Japan had been laid out. The best estimates, based on prevoius battles in the Pacific, pointed at over 1,000,000 US losses alone. This does NOT include an estimated 3,000,000 to 4,000,000 Japanese military & civillian losses.
The option to use nuclear weapons technology to bring the quickest end to the Pacific war as possible, in the end, saved millions of lives on both sides, and Truman knew it.
I wouldn't want to have been in Truman's shoes. The navigator of the Enola Gay lives 18 miles from me...I wouldn't want to have been in his shoes either.
For those who cannot grasp the meaning of "Total War", it means a country or entity using all or most all of the weapons/manpower/technology that it has available to it at that point in history.
The American Union forces in the Civil War introducing multiple shot repeating rifles to it's troops at the beginning of the Atlanta Campaign is an example. American forces using nuclear weapon at the end of WWII is another.
The United States has had nerve agents, poison gas, and other chemical weapons, but up to this point in time have refused to use them. This is an example of an exception to "Total War"
Those implying that the US used nukes AFTER Japan surrendered (:rolleyes:) are either trolling, or just plain ignorant of history.
If anything, I hope threads like this sends people scurrying to their local libraries and Books-A-Millions to learn more about history :aok
I have no idea what school districts are teaching in other countries, but American school districts are woefully lacking in teaching American/World history from about 1900 to present. I hope that changes.
ROX
... The issuing of henry repeater rifles is not an example of total war. Sherman's March to the Sea is.
-
In reading through this whole thread to get up to speed, I have seen some truly corny toejam spewed out here.
First of all, the Japanese were not contemplating surrender as a whole. Emperor Hirohito was thinking about some kind of negotiated settlement. But the Military tribunal in Japan wanted to fight to the last. Inside the Tribunal were officers' who were willing to pull off a coup, and overthrow Hirohito and keep fighting, even after the A-bombs' were dropped. However, the coup was foiled.
There was no secret made of Japanese atrocities during WWII. Junior officers' would practice Samurai Bushido swordsmanship skills' on american POW's by beheading them. They tested Biological weapons' on Chinese prisoners. The Death March of Bataan should not need a description. There are more instances' beyond these I've given here; I'm not gonna take the time to put them all down here. Suffice it to say, that on Moral grounds, by the end of the war, The Japanese did'nt have a leg to stand on.
Now, the necessity of dropping the weapons, and the overall justification, leave out a few other points' that turned out to have a big impact on our post-war world, as well. For instance, The Soviet Unions' declaration of a war against Japan, Only 2 weeks' before the end of the war, Probably did as much to hasten the use of Atomic weapons' as anything else. IMHO, Truman now faced the real danger, of the Soviet's invading and grabbing half of Japan whilst America took the highest casualties of the war trying to implement Operation "Downfall". The Japanese plans' all centered around an American invasion; It did not take a Soviet incursion into account. However, by dropping the Atomic Bombs, and forcing Japan to Surrender to the U.S. as it was then, It enabled the U.S. to occupy and reconstruct Japan as what it wished it to be- A Pro-Western Democracy, Rather than something like what politicians' had already seen in the split up of Post-war Germany, and the Eastern European States' such as Czechloslovakia, Poland, Yugoslavia, Romania, et al, a Communist Puppet-satellite state.
My last point would be, that with the invention of the Nuclear Weapon, it was actually fortunate that it was actually used, and shown to be the terrible, world changing weapon it was. Everyone in the world, from the Highest Politicians' to the common citizen, knew what they were, and what they could do. If the weapon had been developed by some power who kept it secret, and stockpiled them through peacetime, never using any of them until it wanted to make the same kind of Hitlerite gamble to take over the world, we might not have been able to have this conversation right now. Leaders' who had never seen pictures of the devestation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki, naive to the powers' they controlled, might have been too reckless in their political dealings' in a world which had atomic stockpiles, but knew not the implications' of their actions. Once invented, they can not be un-invented. Once used, they can not be ignored, either.
There will most likely always be Japanese who are embittered by the A-bombings. Maybe even a good percentage of the country. Just the same as quite a few americans' of the Greatest Generation would refuse to buy anything made in Japan. Who would not be caught dead driving a Japanese made car, if they could possibly help it. It is fatalistic, at best, to try to do anything other than to tell history for what it was. Which was an Imperialistic Japan's bloody attempt to take over the Pacific Rim and a large part of mainland asia, crushing everything under it's heel in the process, using any means' it so desired, no matter how barbaric and cruel. Once they crossed that line, they should have realized that setting the tone of the fight in that matter might cause reciprocations' in kind...or with interest, many times' over. In other words, don't march prisoners' to death, not feeding them, bayonneting those that drop from exhaustion, and then expect everyone to just say "Ok, I know your doing this to American soldiers' who should have been treated according to the Geneva convention, It's ok, I won't put my entire country into the single goal of kicking your head through your ass, permanately, at the earliest oppurtunity."
If the Japanese wish to fool their future generations' into thinking that what happened to them at Hiroshima and Nagasaki was unjust, and that it should be attoned for, fine.
We'll just have to use more Megatonnage on them next time, to make the lesson stick.
-
Bottom line... Don't start no **** and there won't be any asskicking. :salute
-
Similarly, you could argue how the conflict could have been different if the RN hadn't disbanded their large conventional aircraft carriers?
Good point. That decision truly did come back to haunt them. And they still have not corrected that mistake yet. Their two new carriers are still not due for several years yet.
IThe Vulcan Black Buck missions also showed the Argie scum that RAF bombers were able to strike at that distance from bases in England, and hit mainland Argentina if necessary.
Another good point. I think that mission was more to send a message, than any actual tactical effect it had. The Vulcan was supposed to have been retired by then too. The fact that the plane was still even available for service was a surprise to me at the time of the war.
_____________________________ ___________________________
-
Don't worry, I don't want to nuke Finland. Maybe Iran and North Korea, but thats about it. :t
If you nuked Finland, the Tikka and Sako rifle owners would then all be trying their best to shoot you. They would be really pissed.
_____________________________ ________________________
-
Unlike in The Great War, the Germans didn't use chemical weapons during WWII even if they had them at their disposal. They considered it too cruel a weapon.
That statement is absolute nonsense.
The Germans never used their Chemical weapons in WWII because they KNEW for a fact that the Allies would then retaliate in kind.
How would the air war have been different, if Allied bombers had been dropping chemical weapons on Germany??
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________
-
That statement is absolute nonsense.
The Germans never used their Chemical weapons in WWII because they KNEW for a fact that the Allies would then retaliate in kind.
How would the air war have been different, if Allied bombers had been dropping chemical weapons on Germany??
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________
Not so much the air war, but the whole conflict in general, i'd say. You'd have it being used as a tactical weapon in the field (that is, directly against military forces) but it could have escalated to a strategic weapon quickly (against industrial/population centers.) In that case, the Allies' would have been vastly ahead of the Germans, because they would have been able to deliver chemical weapons' almost anywhere, anytime. The Germans' had failed to effectively build any kind of large strategic bomber force, and by late in the war, they weren't able to get their tactical one off the ground, either because of a lack of fuel/pilots, or because of the dominance of the allied fighter force. Germany's one effective recourse would have been to put chemical warheads' on the V-1 and V-2 missiles, but those were not accurate enough to hit industrial targets' in London or other major English cities. They would be openly attacking the population with poison gas.
-
For instance, The Soviet Unions' declaration of a war against Japan, Only 2 weeks' before the end of the war, Probably did as much to hasten the use of Atomic weapons' as anything else. IMHO, Truman now faced the real danger, of the Soviet's invading and grabbing half of Japan whilst America took the highest casualties of the war trying to implement Operation "Downfall". The Japanese plans' all centered around an American invasion; It did not take a Soviet incursion into account. However, by dropping the Atomic Bombs, and forcing Japan to Surrender to the U.S. as it was then, It enabled the U.S. to occupy and reconstruct Japan as what it wished it to be- A Pro-Western Democracy
You are creating a false impression of the timeline of these events. Here is the chronological order:
August 6, 1945 Hiroshima bombed
August 8, 1945 Soviet Union declares war on Japan
August 9, 1945 Nagasaki is bombed
In addition, the Japanese had been counting on the Soviets to be the mediator for their negotiated end to the war. And since they were no longer neutral, their hope of furthering such negotiations collapsed.
_____________________________ ___________________
-
I don't see history being rewritten. The article was factual. Is it wrong to point out that the bombings were horrible or that many died?
I was wondering if the wrong article was linked.
-
Yeah, the Germans used NO "weaponized" chemical in the war ... LOL
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
I was wondering if the wrong article was linked.
It was not just the text of the article, which was actually written 3 years ago by an Associated Press reporter on the 60th Anniversary of the Firebombing.
The left-leaning website that reprinted this article on the 63rd Anniversary this week added the photo and all of the text that is under it. And it was the addition of that text by the folks at Common Dreams that had references in it to the attack being a war crime and a terror attack.
I'm sure that is the opinion of the staff at Common Dreams.
You ought to check out all of the garbage they have on their website. The latest is that Governor Spitzer was being specifically targeted by the Bush Administration, and that is how they managed to detect his transactions to the Escort Service. They claim that such transactions would never normally have been detected, unless the Republicans were abusing their power to go after him.
So you see, it is President Bush who is to blame for Spitzer losing his job:
http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/12/7639/
_____________________________ _____________________________ ___
-
See Rules #4, #5.
But all of the munitions being used to kill American servicemen were being built by women in their war factories. Are you trying to say that these women were not legitimate military targets?? Without them, the factories would of had no workers to make the weapons killing our troops.
I would gladly have killed a dozen Japanese women myself, if it meant saving the life of just one American serviceman.
You also need to better understand Japanese society back then. Their military lost a great deal of "face", because they were not able to protect their homeland. By the United States slaughtering civilians, the Japanese military were humiliated and disgraced by their inability to stop it. Their standing in Japanese society was destroyed. Thus allowing civilians the opportunity to end the insanity of the war, which the military had originally started.
The Firebombings and Atomic Bombs were the kindest and most humane things that the USA could have done to Japan at that time. For the alternative was to invade the country, which would have caused much more massive loss of civilian lives.
_____________________________ ___________________
-
That statement is absolute nonsense.
The Germans never used their Chemical weapons in WWII because they KNEW for a fact that the Allies would then retaliate in kind.
How would the air war have been different, if Allied bombers had been dropping chemical weapons on Germany??
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________
My statement makes absolute sense in relation to Nuke's post. He stated that the Germans didn't hold back anything, but they did. You just stated the reason why they did, but that does in no way invalidate my statement or the fact that the Germans did hold back. Even on the Russian front.
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
My statement makes absolute sense in relation to Nuke's post. He stated that the Germans didn't hold back anything, but they did. You just stated the reason why they did, but that does in no way invalidate my statement or the fact that the Germans did hold back. Even on the Russian front.
Of course your statement is complete nonsense, because you included your bogus reason for holding back as part of it.
You cannot separate the two, or pull just a part of the statement out, and say that it is then valid. Either the statement stands as a hold, or falls apart as a whole.
_____________________________ __________
-
See Rules #4, #5
-
You are creating a false impression of the timeline of these events. Here is the chronological order:
August 6, 1945 Hiroshima bombed
August 8, 1945 Soviet Union declares war on Japan
August 9, 1945 Nagasaki is bombed
In addition, the Japanese had been counting on the Soviets to be the mediator for their negotiated end to the war. And since they were no longer neutral, their hope of furthering such negotiations collapsed.
_____________________________ ___________________
True, but you have to also remember that because of info leakage from the Manhattan Project, Stalin knew about the Atomic bomb by the time of Potsdam. With the war in europe wrapping up, He knew his time was short. The end of the war would literally stop him in whatever territories' he currently occupied. The A-bombing would literally be the final buzzer in the end-war Asian land grab.
Imagine how different maps' would have been, had the bombing's occured before the German's finally capitulated? An earlier end to the war in Asia might have kept Communism more at bay (or at least considerably delayed it's spread) due to the Unavailibility of Russian Troops' to occupy Manchuria.
-
See Rules #4, #5
Yes, I would argue that all of the countless civilians ( and the even more millions of their ancestors ) who did not die, because the USA did not have to invade Japan, would have considered that approach to be far more humane. Sparing lives is considered to be more humane than killing a far greater number of people.
Face it: Your course would have been the much bloodier and murderous choice for President Truman to have made. And by the way, most historical accounts put Japanese civilian casualties for the war at less than 600,000. In contrast, in the case of Nazi Germany ( which was invaded ) civilian deaths are estimated to have been around 1,700,000, almost 3 times that. Only a little more than 400,000 civilians are estimated to have been killed by the Allied Bombing campaign against Germany. Russia and China ( which were both invaded ) had by far the highest civilian deaths recorded in the war.
As far as the Third Reich goes, what exactly is the analogy that you are trying to make? You don't explain it. It would appear that you are comparing America's firebombing of Tokyo to the Nazi Concentration Camps. If that is the case, then you are well beyond my ability to adequately describe your thinking.
_____________________________ ______________________
-
Of course your statement is complete nonsense, because you included your bogus reason for holding back as part of it.
You cannot separate the two, or pull just a part of the statement out, and say that it is then valid. Either the statement stands as a hold, or falls apart as a whole.
_____________________________ __________
There was nothing bogus about the reason I stated.
"The United States began producing chemical weapons late in the conflict. they established the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) and first participated in a chemical weapons attack with the British October 13, 1918. One of the casualties of that attack was a young infantryman named Adolf Hitler. The gas inflicted such pain that Hitler had to be evacuated to Germany. The attack may have saved countless lives because it cemented in Hitler a lifelong hate of chemical weapons which influenced many policies in the second World War.
Hitler's aversion to chemical weapons continued throughout the second World War. Against the wishes of many of his high commanders, Hitler wanted to use chemical weapons only in retaliation against a similar attack. However, he continued to push the German military to produce and stockpile weapons to ensure German superiority should the Allies commence chemical warfare (Tucker, 2006)."
My statement stands.
-
See Rules #4, #5
As I described in my previous post, it is your position that is far less humane, and clearly lacking in human compassion and mercy. The alternative was a blood bath, which you appear to would have rather seen happen.
You have a very serious misunderstanding of the history of WWII, if you think that invaded nations did not suffer by far the worst civilian casualties. History also shows that the Japanese government was organizing civilians to participate in the defense of their homeland.
_____________________________ ___________________
-
See Rules #4, #5
Moray, this is basic history, if you going to try and be a smartarse do some research first, so you don't end up looking like a sad excuse for an apologist:
At some battles, such as Iwo Jima, there had been no civilians involved, but Okinawa had a large indigenous civilian population. Okinawan civilian losses in the campaign were 140,000; in addition, it is estimated that more than a third of the surviving civilian population was wounded.
During World War II, when many Okinawans still spoke a different dialect, Japanese troops treated the locals brutally. In its history of the war, the Okinawa Prefectural >The Basic Concept of the Okinawa Prefectural Peace Memorial Museum Peace Memorial Museum[9] presents Okinawa as being caught in the fighting between America and Japan. During the 1945 battle, the Japanese Army showed indifference to Okinawa's defense and safety, and the Japanese soldiers used civilians as human shields against the Americans. Japanese military also took all their food, and executed these who hid it, leading to a mass starvation.
With the impending victory of American troops, civilians often committed mass suicide, urged on by Japanese soldiers. They persuaded locals that victorious American soldiers would go on a rampage of killing and raping. (A revisionist historian has claimed that rape was "a general practice against Japanese women", estimating in excess of 10,000 victims during the Okinawa campaign.[1] Ryukyu Shimpo, one of the two major Okinawan newspapers, wrote: "There are many Okinawans who have testified that the Japanese Army directed them to commit suicide. There are also people who have testified that they were handed grenades by Japanese soldiers" (to blow themselves up).[10] Some of the civilians, having been induced by Japanese propaganda to believe that U.S. soldiers were barbarians who committed horrible atrocities (It has been suggested that the mutilation of dead enemies by U.S. servicemen may have been referenced), killed their families and themselves to avoid capture. Some Okinawans threw themselves and their family members from the cliffs where the Peace Museum now resides. Other Okinawans were murdered by Japanese to prevent their capture or to steal their food and supplies. Japanese American Military Intelligence Service[11] combat translators with the U.S. military tried to convince civilians to not kill themselves, even climbing into caves to talk to them. Their efforts had limited success.[12]
-
... The issuing of henry repeater rifles is not an example of total war. Sherman's March to the Sea is.
Hate to tell ya....your only half right.
Correct...Sherman's March to The Sea (as well as the ensuing hook North to the Carolinas) is an excellent example of Total War. Bringing overwhelming numbers to bear, and releasing restrictions on soldiers forraging for food from civilian homes & also burning civilian homes.
Issuing repeating rifles to the Union Army was also an example of Total War. The prior technology only allowed a rifle reloading at a rate of 20 to 30 seconds (depending on the soldier)...a repeating rifle that could allow a soldier to fire once every 2 to 3 seconds (depending on the soldier) was considered inhumane by some due to the utter carnage that a small contingient of soldiers equiped with them could do.
Especially when they were used against an enemy that only had the old technology.
Had the Gatalin Gun been produced in greater numbers, it too would have been an example...but too few were made.
ROX
ROX
-
See Rules #4, #5
Dang moray, your getting PWN3D all over teh place lol
-
Hate to tell ya....your only half right.
Correct...Sherman's March to The Sea (as well as the ensuing hook North to the Carolinas) is an excellent example of Total War. Bringing overwhelming numbers to bear, and releasing restrictions on soldiers forraging for food from civilian homes & also burning civilian homes.
Issuing repeating rifles to the Union Army was also an example of Total War. The prior technology only allowed a rifle reloading at a rate of 20 to 30 seconds (depending on the soldier)...a repeating rifle that could allow a soldier to fire once every 2 to 3 seconds (depending on the soldier) was considered inhumane by some due to the utter carnage that a small contingient of soldiers equiped with them could do.
Especially when they were used against an enemy that only had the old technology.
Had the Gatalin Gun been produced in greater numbers, it too would have been an example...but too few were made.
ROX
ROX
By that logic, the use of anything remotely better is total war.
The US waged Total War on Germany with Garands. :rofl
-
By that logic, the use of anything remotely better is total war.
The US waged Total War on Germany with Garands. :rofl
When going up against mg42's and 88mm anti-tank fire?
In reference to Total War, it's something that created a HUGE difference in the outcome of a war. While Gen. George S. Patton called the M1 Garand the "best infantry weapon of the war" it certainly didn't have the impact of say, Sherman's March/Repeating Rifles in the Civil War, or the Atom Bombs in WWII.
Someday, folks will actually read & study history.
ROX
-
See Rule #2
-
If you do not know why those got edited, then you will not be around much longer. It is your choice to violate the posting rules. It is not my job to educate you in what they mean.
-
Then what is the job of a "Community Manager"? If you don't mind me asking.
-
Seems irrelevant. If you wish to pursue this, then you can PM me, rather than hijack this thread.
-
Issuing repeating rifles to the Union Army was also an example of Total War. The prior technology only allowed a rifle reloading at a rate of 20 to 30 seconds (depending on the soldier)...a repeating rifle that could allow a soldier to fire once every 2 to 3 seconds (depending on the soldier) was considered inhumane by some due to the utter carnage that a small contingient of soldiers equiped with them could do.
Repeating rifles may have had some folks crying about being inhumane, but that's not why the military was slow to adopt them. The old technology was cheaper, soldiers went thru less ammo when they could only fire 2-3 shots per minute. Total War is a tactic and can be employed regardless of the arms that the soldiers use.
-
Hate to tell ya....your only half right.
Correct...Sherman's March to The Sea (as well as the ensuing hook North to the Carolinas) is an excellent example of Total War. Bringing overwhelming numbers to bear, and releasing restrictions on soldiers forraging for food from civilian homes & also burning civilian homes.
Issuing repeating rifles to the Union Army was also an example of Total War. The prior technology only allowed a rifle reloading at a rate of 20 to 30 seconds (depending on the soldier)...a repeating rifle that could allow a soldier to fire once every 2 to 3 seconds (depending on the soldier) was considered inhumane by some due to the utter carnage that a small contingient of soldiers equiped with them could do.
Especially when they were used against an enemy that only had the old technology.
Had the Gatalin Gun been produced in greater numbers, it too would have been an example...but too few were made.
ROX
ROX
Using the Henry rifle as an anology of "Total Warfare" is inane as all get-out. It's merely a technological advance. Which happens' all the time. If you wished to pull up an example of Total warfare from the period of the Civil War, It would have to be something like the Union Blockade of Southern ports. That prohibited the South from receiving much of the needed arms' and supplies' that it could not manufacture for itself (Most of the Industry in the U.S. was located in the Northern states, at that time) and as a result, It crippled the South's ability to wage war.
To put it more simply, Total war is waged by attacking everything the enemy has, his ability to keep his population going, his factories' that make his war materials, his methods' of moving them around...Not just his troops' in the field, or his known military bases. Everything.
-
So SIG220, are you man enough to admit you were wrong?
-
I guess not. :rolleyes:
-
Then what is the job of a "Community Manager"? If you don't mind me asking.
Take your shades elsewhere Lumpy.
-
No.
-
So SIG220, are you man enough to admit you were wrong?
Why, when I have already proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that your original statement was wrong, bogus, incorrect, inaccurate, erroneous, false, untrue, unsubstantiated, undocumented, counterfactual, not right, in error, and also misguided??
You need to look back at what you originally said.
_____________________________ ____________
-
_____________________________________
It appears that history is being re-written:
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines05/0310-08.htm
Yesterday was the 63rd Anniversary of the Firebombing of Tokyo.
I guess nobody bothers to remember this little island chain called Hawaii, with this little place called Pearl harbor.
_____________________________ __________________________
-
You calling me a shade? A shade of what?
I liked you better as uvwpvW. ;)
-
Why, when I have already proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that your original statement was wrong, bogus, incorrect, inaccurate, erroneous, false, untrue, unsubstantiated, undocumented, counterfactual, not right, in error, and also misguided??
You need to look back at what you originally said.
_____________________________ ____________
So I will:
Unlike in The Great War, the Germans didn't use chemical weapons during WWII even if they had them at their disposal. They considered it too cruel a weapon. During the development of the A-bomb it was though to be just a very powerful explosive in military circles. The horrific after effects were not widely known.
That statement is absolute nonsense.
The Germans never used their Chemical weapons in WWII because they KNEW for a fact that the Allies would then retaliate in kind.
How would the air war have been different, if Allied bombers had been dropping chemical weapons on Germany??
_____________________________ _____________________________ _________________________
There was nothing bogus about the reason I stated.
"The United States began producing chemical weapons late in the conflict. they established the Chemical Warfare Service (CWS) and first participated in a chemical weapons attack with the British October 13, 1918. One of the casualties of that attack was a young infantryman named Adolf Hitler. The gas inflicted such pain that Hitler had to be evacuated to Germany. The attack may have saved countless lives because it cemented in Hitler a lifelong hate of chemical weapons which influenced many policies in the second World War.
Hitler's aversion to chemical weapons continued throughout the second World War. Against the wishes of many of his high commanders, Hitler wanted to use chemical weapons only in retaliation against a similar attack. However, he continued to push the German military to produce and stockpile weapons to ensure German superiority should the Allies commence chemical warfare (Tucker, 2006)."
My statement stands.
So what part of my statement was wrong, bogus, incorrect, inaccurate, erroneous, false, untrue, unsubstantiated, undocumented, counterfactual, not right, in error, and also misguided? Nothing.
I think you're just incapable of admitting you were mistaken. Considering you are more often wrong than right in your posts on this forum it is an unfortunate character flaw.
-
But please tell me of a single kid or woman in america that was burned alive,
May 5, 1945 Bly Oregon--
Bly minister Archie Mitchell, his five-months-pregnant wife, Elsie, and five children from his Sunday school class were on a Saturday morning picnic. When he stopped to park near Leonard Creek, his wife and the children jumped out and headed to the creek. Within minutes, the six - Elsie Mitchell, 26, Jay Gifford, 13, Edward Engen, 13, Dick Patzke, 14, Joan Patzke, 13, and Sherman Shoemaker, 11 - were dead.
"As I got out of the car to bring the lunch, the others were not far away and called to me they had found something that looked like a balloon," Mitchell recalled later.
"I heard of Japanese balloons so I shouted a warning not to touch it. But just then there was a big explosion. I ran up there - and they were all dead."
-
look I didnt read any of the posts but here is the thing. THEY started the war with us. THEY bayoneted babies, raped women, killed and tourtured prisoners, not to mention the Bataan Death March were if you fell, you were expected to get shot (if you were lucky) or bayoneted. They found it entertaining to beat prisoners and people of conquered terrotories. They not only did that but would refuse to surrender until all were dead. So a small firebombing raid that was to save millions more is not that big of a deal. They started it with things much worse. I did not see the link. I'm just posting this. I still feel the right for older american vetrans should still have the right to be mad at them for Pearl Harbor, their friends, the tortured.
But hey, when my dad was stationed in Germany in the 80s, things were much worse. Almost all of them hated the americans there.
-
So I will:
<< re-quoted text and new personal attack omitted >>
As far as myself having a "character flaw" regarding my beliefs on this issue, I will now turn the tables here and instead take a look at your position.
How should a person like yourself be judged for your beliefs that you have stated here?? Someone who argues that the Nazis held back on using chemical weapons because they were against using "cruel" weapons???
Do you not realize that your words are defending the most perverted, cruel, and immoral regime in recent world history?? What insight does that provide??
Well, I have big news for you: The Nazis were NOT against cruelty or using cruel means. They embraced cruelty, brutality, and sadism all throughout WWII. The only reason why they did not use chemical weapons was due to the threat of retaliation. And that is the ONE and ONLY reason. Not because they had any moral reservations about using weapons that were considered to be too cruel, as your original statement so incorrectly states.
And that is the simple TRUTH of this matter, no matter how much you argue here and try to spin things around. Your statement was totally and most definitely WRONG, despite the fact that you are unwilling to admit it.
Now that you have sunk so low here in your latest post to making a remark of a person nature against me, I am ending this conversation with you.
Feel free to have the last word here.
_____________________________ ___________________________
-
Forgot to make the post I wanted to make when I quoted this, so here it is, I guess the fire bombings were part of war, country's fight wars over various reasons, but the end result is the same in every war, someone wins someone loses, it doesn't matter if it was from a bullet, grenade, airplane, tank, land mine firebomb, nuclear bomb or a CNN camera man with a microphone, somebody's gonna get dead. So whats the big deal about planes dropping firebombs in WW2 on Japan? Thats basically pointing out the obvious, a plane dropped some bombs, same thing as when Japan bombed Pearl harbor some planes dropped some bombs.
-
As far as myself having a "character flaw" regarding my beliefs on this issue, I will now turn the tables here and instead take a look at your position.
How should a person like yourself be judged for your beliefs that you have stated here?? Someone who argues that the Nazis held back on using chemical weapons because they were against using "cruel" weapons???
Do you not realize that your words are defending the most perverted, cruel, and immoral regime in recent world history?? What insight does that provide??
Well, I have big news for you: The Nazis were NOT against cruelty or using cruel means. They embraced cruelty, brutality, and sadism all throughout WWII. The only reason why they did not use chemical weapons was due to the threat of retaliation. And that is the ONE and ONLY reason. Not because they had any moral reservations about using weapons that were considered to be too cruel, as your original statement so incorrectly states.
And that is the simple TRUTH of this matter, no matter how much you argue here and try to spin things around. Your statement was totally and most definitely WRONG, despite the fact that you are unwilling to admit it.
Now that you have sunk so low here in your latest post to making a remark of a person nature against me, I am ending this conversation with you.
Feel free to have the last word here.
_____________________________ ___________________________
Reading your post it is obvious that you have a personal stake in this debate. Perhaps you are Jewish or have some other personal reason to hate the Germans. Despite the horrors they committed against what they called sub-human peoples the FACT remains that the Germans were in General MacArthur's words "civilized conquerors". The FACT remains that despite a clear advantage in chemical weapons technology through the discovery of the nerve agents tabun and sarin by Gerhard Schrader, a chemist of IG Farben, the Germans refrained from using it ... they held back. The only chemical weapons available to the allies were primitive WWI chemicals like mustard gas. The FACT remains that after being himself exposed to the horrors of chemical warfare in the Great War Hitler hated chemical weapons and did not want to use them even when his ally Japan did use them. The FACT remains that the United States of America and the Empire of Japan are the only two countries who used weapons of mass destruction in WWII.
Germany held back. Even in the last desperate days of the Third Reich with Germany in ruins and nothing to lose Hitler didn't use chemical weapons, and no personal bigotry and hateful ignorance from you is going to change that FACT.
-
Even in the last desperate days of the Third Reich with Germany in ruins and nothing to lose Hitler didn't use chemical weapons, and no personal bigotry and hateful ignorance from you is going to change that FACT.
What was it they were piping into those gas chambers that killed millions of jews?
-
A cyanide-based insecticide called Zyklon B. You obviously overlooked my comment on "sub-human peoples".
-
A cyanide-based insecticide called Zyklon B. You obviously overlooked my comment on "sub-human peoples".
Murdering human beings by the millions as did both the Germans and the Japanese without conscience because they are "sub-human" is as much an atrocity and inexcusable as any act during war.
-
Unquestionably.
-
I got news for you, we fire bombed japan so badly we only had a very* short limited list for citys to drop the nukes on, and we still did it.
And till this day the american people are still the only humans on this planet that are guilty of nuclear genocide.
Ah yes, the sins of this great nation. :rock
Genocide: the deliberate extermination of a race of people - Oxford American Dictionary. I missed the part where we nuked the Chinese, Koreans, Thais, etc... War is not a nice thing and there is no 'chivalry' when it comes to warfare, not even in medieval period. Using the tactics and beliefs of this era to judge the actions of those in that era will never work. Ethnocentric history will always be seen differently by the parties involved.
-
The Japanese are a separate race in their own right. So are the Chinese, Koreans and Thais for that matter.
-
Sorry your mistaken. Race and ethnicity are seperate issues. Either way there was no concerted effort to kill Japenese outside of armed conflict to be confused with genocide. Mass murder by Japan, Germany, Turkey, Italy and Russia are all well documented. Either way, the disparity of knowledge and language of participants in the BBS is a source of constant amusment. Especially entertaining are those who engage continuously to disagree with any and everyone in the hope of being able to resort to disparaging remarks. :)
-
Ethnicity becomes race over a prolonged period. The Japanese and Koreans are a good example. It is believed by some that Koreans settled Japan about 16 thousand years ago. Don't tell that to a Japanese though.
-
"In biology, a race is any inbreeding group, including taxonomic subgroups such as subspecies, taxonomically subordinate to a species and superordinate to a subrace and marked by a pre-determined profile of latent factors of hereditary traits.
Examples of race include:
* The key lime and the Mexican lime, both of species Citrus x aurantifolia. The Mexican lime has a thicker skin and darker green color.
* The wild cat (Felis silvestris silvestris), desert cat (Felis silvestris lybica) the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus).
* The Western honey bee is divided into several honey bee races"
The Japanese people clearly have physical hereditary traits that separate them from other Asian peoples.
-
True, but those are just ethnocentric viewpoints that are confusing enthnicity for race by national bigotry. I understand where the posters are coming from. I also understand that most of us choose to change the meanings of things because it is easier to do that than learn their true meanings.
-
If that was true then the same argument can be used for all human races. I.e. that there are no races at all. I'm sorry but even if it is politically correct to say that there is only one human race in biological terms that is nonsense.
But we digress gentlemen. I suggest we stay on topic or start a new thread.
-
The Japanese are a separate race in their own right. So are the Chinese, Koreans and Thais for that matter.
I would say this is wrong. I would say we are all Humans, one race.
Feel free to have the final say. :)
-
Thank you. What you say would be true if you replace the word "species" for "race". There are only one human species, but many different races of humans. Political correctness be damned.
-
Now for lumpy's next trick.
He'll explain to us how the SS were just misunderstood.
-
Stinky bait. Not biting.
-
Hey, guess who's making an inalienable claim to the falkland islands?
Guess who is still, and always right?
-
Thank you. What you say would be true if you replace the word "species" for "race". There are only one human species, but many different races of humans. Political correctness be damned.
Your right there is only one species of human being on this planet, but I have to disagree with your statement about many different races of humans.
The species of humans on this planet is called Homosapien, the race is called Human. Hence the term "human race" It doesn't take a college degree to understand that. One Race...............Human, with many different variations in that race due to tech region they evolved in.
-
Hey, guess who's making an inalienable claim to the falkland islands?
Guess who is still, and always right?
Who cares?
shamus
-
Hey, guess who's making an inalienable claim to the falkland islands?
Guess who is still, and always right?
OMG! :rofl
-
Anyone who reads, let alone quote, Common Dreams dot com, is an idjit. So brush it off. Bleeding Heart Liberal Site hiding behind the intellectual disguise of "progressive" politics.
Ahem... Đ 2005 The Associated Press.
:aok