I've just read in our local newspaper that GWB and Tony Blair are nominated for this year's Nobel Prize for Peace!!!!
WTF, I thought April Fool's Day was in April!?
If they ARE serious, then who will be nominated next year? Saddam Hussein? Osama bin Laden?
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
Yasser Arafat.
Oh, wait.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Exactly: if Arafat can get the award and Mandella can get the award despite his wife's "football club" then it means about half as much as the current state of "knighthood".
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Regardless of your opinions on whether the war was justified, can you really argue that the world is not a better place overall without Sadaam Hussein in power?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Sooooooooo...
You're saying that it doesn't matter that the whole reason for the war in the first place could very well be complete tosh, because Hussein was caught?
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
No.
Posted by MinutiaeMan (Member # 444) on :
That would be like giving Harry Truman the Peace Prize for ordering the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Sure, it ended the war... but what did it start?
I pray that this is some kind of twisted joke.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Soooo the projected U.S. casualties for Operation Coronet of 750,000 men plus in the initial week vs. demonstrating to an enemy willing to fight to the death that they could be wiped out without a fight was a BAD thing? Remember, Russia had already gotten their hands on a good portion of our atomic tech not to mention their newly recruited German scientists. Hitler had only been perhaps a year away from his own nukes to go with his ballistic missle (V2). Saying we started the atomic race is at best INACCURATE.
Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Weeelll...it varies a bit: if they dropped the A-Bomb on toyko it would have been abetter military target but the odds of the plane being shot down would skyrocket. And you wouldnt want the Japanese of WWII having the bomb.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Had either the Enola Gay or the Boch's Car been shot down... THAT would have been the site of the Atomic detonation.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Oh goodie. A thread about whether Horishima and Nagasaki being blown up was a good thing or not. That never gets old.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I think we can all agree it wasnt a good thing for the residents of those cities.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?
Well, that's not the real choice.
The best wartime estimate for the number of casualties for the entire campaign to end the war (including invasions of both Kyushu in fall 1945 and Honshu in early 1946 and the capture of Tokyo) was 370,000, including 290,000 wounded and 80,000 dead (These figures are from Dunnigans and Nofi's book "Victory at Sea"). The oft-quoted figure of "1 million dead" is a pure myth that started appearing after the war, mostly in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings. Japanese casualties, both civilian and military, would probably have been several times higher than US casualties (and certainly much higher than the actual casualties in the two atomic bombings), if the Japanese had resisted the invasion until the end. I don't intend to argue for or against any war-ending strategy; I just don't want to see inaccurate numbers thrown about.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Regardless of your opinions on whether the war was justified, can you really argue that the world is not a better place overall without Sadaam Hussein in power?"
Well... yes. I mean, just how much of the world do you think has changed the slightest bit in the last nine months? Iraq itself is now, in many respects, better off. But that's about it. So, if you had said that almost 0.3% of the world (by area) is a better place, or that almost 0.4% of the world (by population) is a better place, I'd say you were likely right. At least for the moment.
Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
Maybe I should nuke Washington and carpet-bomb the rest of the USA with dirty bombs and other WMDs. Then I can get nominated as well.
Hey, if it worked for GWB and TB, then it should work for me as well.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
quote:Originally posted by Masao:
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?
Well, that's not the real choice.
The best wartime estimate for the number of casualties for the entire campaign to end the war (including invasions of both Kyushu in fall 1945 and Honshu in early 1946 and the capture of Tokyo) was 370,000, including 290,000 wounded and 80,000 dead (These figures are from Dunnigans and Nofi's book "Victory at Sea"). The oft-quoted figure of "1 million dead" is a pure myth that started appearing after the war, mostly in an attempt to justify the atomic bombings. Japanese casualties, both civilian and military, would probably have been several times higher than US casualties (and certainly much higher than the actual casualties in the two atomic bombings), if the Japanese had resisted the invasion until the end. I don't intend to argue for or against any war-ending strategy; I just don't want to see inaccurate numbers thrown about.
I thought that was a total number of dead, the 1,000,000, which you numbers back up. After the war they made it 1,000,000 dead US troops, to justify the bombs.
Posted by Austin Powers (Member # 250) on :
Leaving Hiroshima and Nagasaki aside and returning to the original topic:
I just find it odd, that two of the prime warmongers of our time should be nominated for any Peace Prize. If the Nobel committee were an American institution, ok, then I could understand their reasoning as being patriotic, but that's not the case. So again, WTF? I just hope this news article turns out to be hoax after all. Just think of the consequences! If the world is shown the example "Look, these two militaristic leaders who start wars without justified cause get the Nobel prize for Peace!", what would you think the reaction will be in many countries - especially in the Muslim world?
Posted by Grokca (Member # 722) on :
quote:Maybe I should nuke Washington and carpet-bomb the rest of the USA with dirty bombs and other WMDs.
At least they may quit droning on about seeing a breast on tv.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: Peace is one of the five prize areas mentioned in Alfred Nobel's will. The will was, however, partly incomplete. Nobel simply stated that prizes be given to those who, during the preceding year, "shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind" and that one part be given to the person who "shall have done the most or the best work for fraternity between nations, for the abolition or reduction of standing armies and for the holding and promotion of peace congresses."
Hmmm... not entirely convinced that Bush and Blair's actions fall under those catagories. I suppose the 'benefit to mankind' part is possible but Bush has certainly screwed his chances on the second bit. Although the way Blair is treating our Forces at the moment he probably would qualify.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Regardless of your opinions on whether the war was justified, can you really argue that the world is not a better place overall without Sadaam Hussein in power?"
Ask again in ten years.
"Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?"
Well, hypothetically, if half of those 200,000 enemies were women and children, I'd order the latter (that, incidentally, is why I'm not a three-star general). Indiscriminate killing is ALWAYS wrong.
"...Bush has certainly screwed his chances on the second bit."
And on the third and fourth.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman:
"Which would you order? The deaths of 200,000 enemies or 3/4 of a million of your own men?"
Well, hypothetically, if half of those 200,000 enemies were women and children, I'd order the latter (that, incidentally, is why I'm not a three-star general). Indiscriminate killing is ALWAYS wrong.
Well, if you were the commander of those 3/4 million men, you'd have a greater responsibility to their survival than any citizens of an enemy nation.
It's probably one of history's toughest decisions.
Incidentally, I doubt anyone of the Nobel committe of the 1940's would consider FDR, Churchill ar any other leader in wartime a candidate for the Peace Prize. Standards sure are going out the window....
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
You're right, I would have that responsibility, but I still could not in good 21st century conscience order The Bomb to be dropped on a largely civilian population even it WOULD ensure the survival of my troops and end the war outright, and I refuse to let WizArtistic arithmetic decide questions like this.
Anyway, we've been over this before, so it's probably a good idea to drag this thing back on track while we still can.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
This whole conversation reminds me of a fiction work wherein Germany wins WWI and good ol' Shicklegruber doesn't get all angst driven and become "Der Fuhrer". Instead it is the Frenchies that get trod on until an angst driven DeGaulle comes to power and starts "cleansing" the purity of the Norman race.
If it had not been the U.S. it would have been Russia, or Britain or China or now India or Pakistan. Who knows, perhaps in a few years it would be Luxemborg or the Vatican. The point is, that the US is being villified for being the first. I PRAY that we are also the LAST and ONLY to have ever done so. IF that happens, then perhaps far far more than a million lives will have been saved.
I believe Einstein said that he didn't know what weapons WW3 would be fought with but WW4 would be fought with sticks and stones.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
The Vatican?!?!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Why not? The pope already has irrational, fanatical zealots in every country....
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: Indiscriminate killing is ALWAYS wrong.
ROME--The Vatican announced today it has secretly developed a nuclear bomb, to be used as deterrent against Western "imperialist agressors." The Pope told the 800 residents of the Holy See to be prepared for a US attack. The United States has declared Vatican City a member of the European axis of evil, along with Andorra, Luxemborg, Liechtenstein, and San Marino.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
I have never, EVER said that the Japanese did NOT also carry out indescribable atrocities. Do not even SUGGEST it.
Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :
Apparently, Japan is considering building an atomic bomb as a deterrent against North Korea. Or so says the BBC, at least.
Posted by Ritten (Member # 417) on :
Doesn't that go against several long standing treaties, errr, surrender agreements, that limit the size and capabilities of their armed forces????
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"Instead it is the Frenchies that get trod on until an angst driven DeGaulle comes to power and starts 'cleansing' the purity of the Norman race."
That would be kind of ironic, talking about the purity of the Norman race when your name is "de Gaulle".
Then again, I suppose it's actually less strange than a white Central European talking about being Aryan.
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Apparently, Japan is considering building an atomic bomb as a deterrent against North Korea. Or so says the BBC, at least.
As far as I know, there's no law against developing nuclear weapons (other than international nonproliferation treaties), just government policy. The government has officially disallowed the production, importation, or use of nuclear weapons in or by Japan; however, it secretly allowed the US to store and tranship nuclear weapons in and thru Okinawa during the cold war, and US ships routinely have nuclear weapons on board. Japan uses a "don't ask, don't tell" policy about these nukes.
With threats from N Korea and China, Japan is again thinking of getting nukes. This used to be a completely taboo subject, broached only by right-wing crack pots. But the fact that the issue can even be discussed by mainstream politicos and commentators represents a pretty big change.
The Japanese military is extremely well-equipped. Although military spending is only barely above 1% of GNP, Japan has the world's second largest economy, so that's a lot of money. Although Japanese armed forces are called 'self-defense forces,' they are like other countries' militaries in most ways. The Maritime SDF operates scores of destroyers throughout the Pacific and is thinking of getting a helicopter carrier. The Air SDF is thinking of getting aerial refuelling tankers. The Daikaiju SDF is rumored to deploy a wide range of exotic weaponry to combat various alien and terrestrial megafauna (ok, that's not true).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ritten: Doesn't that go against several long standing treaties, errr, surrender agreements, that limit the size and capabilities of their armed forces????
No, because Japan has not entered into any international agreements (other than the NPT) that commit it to abstaining from the development of nuclear weapons.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Besides, everyone knows that their most secret weapon is the Type 97 Attack Lizard seen HERE Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
Japan has been debating whether to amend its constitution to become once again a "normal" country (like the US, heh) able to threaten its neighbors and make war. Japan's Constiitution has never been amended, but pressure to do so is building. Article 9 of the constitution states:
"Aspiring sincerely to an international peace based on justice and order, the Japanese people forever renounce war as a sovereign right of the nation and the threat or use of force as means of settling international disputes.
"In order to accomplish the aim of the preceding paragraph, land, sea, and air forces, as well as other war potential, will never be maintained. The right of belligerency of the state will not be recognized. "
Of course, the Japanese use force all the time to settle domestic disputes!
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Japan has attacked the US with numerous idiotic anime series that went no whre nad cost me many hours of my life. Really, have you ever seen Blue Gender? It's a WMD of sheer pointlessness.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
quote:Originally posted by Cartman: I have never, EVER said that the Japanese did NOT also carry out indescribable atrocities. Do not even SUGGEST it.
I am not suggesting you said such a thing. I am merely adding more facts to this discussion for each reader to decide for himself or herself.
The Japanese were slaughtering other Asians throughout World War II, and they would have continued to do so until the war's end. For one to begin to examine and question whether the war should have ended as abruptly as it did with the atomic bombings, one must have all the facts, and while you personally may already know about the other atrocities going on in the Pacific theater, I know some reading this don't know the true desparation that was going on at the time.
The fact is that with the atomic bombings, the war ended quickly, and with that, the killing of hundreds if not thousands of other Asian civilians and POWs in addition to US and Allied troops who would be called for an invasion of Japan. The question now is whether in times of war you should place priority over all civilian lives and lose your own or your allies to the enemy or value yours first.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
??? You do realise that the Japanese invasion of China started in 1937. According to your link, Nanking happened in 1937-1938. The US didn't even enter the war till after Pearl Harbour in 1941.
I would think that the desire to save civilian lives would rate pretty damn low on the US list of priorities in that war, unless you're proposing that they were afflicted with the worst case of lag, ever.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, the US was afflicted with the worst case if congressional isolationism ever.
If you think today's US pokes it's nose into everybody else's business, look at all the lives we could have potentially saved if FDR had been allowed to bring the US into the war prior to Pearl Harbor.
Posted by Ace (Member # 389) on :
The Nanjing Massacre is unfortunately only one atrocity the Japanese committed during World War II.
There was the Fukuoka prison camp, one of several camps were POWs were treated inhumanely all the way to the end of the war.
There were other massacres throughout Asia as well.
If you now are arguing that because the US may not have known of these crimes, the use of the atomic bomb was not justified, well, you may present your case (it'd probably be best to open another thread to keep this one on track), but knowing the facts so far revealed today in the 21st century, I would think the question now is, "Based on what we know now, were the bombings justified?"
ADDED: I realize many readers here would probably prefer a non-Chinese site, so with a little internet searching, I've located a Princeton site.
[ February 04, 2004, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: Ace ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Obviously they knew about some of the crimes, that much is not in question. But I believe that a better question than "Based on what we know now, were the bombings justified?" is "Based on what they knew then, why did they drop the bomb at that particular time?" or even "What were their intentions?"
The US entered the war because they were attacked in strength, not due to any sympathy for China. They dropped the bomb primarily to avert their own casualties, not Japanese or even Chinese casualites.
So we know now, they may have saved lives. Yay for us, but you don't give people credit for things they didn't know about, expect, or most importantly, intend.
In other words, the ends don't justify the means, especially in this case when the "ends" are tacked on by us as a rationale.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Consider the following scenario:
Your next-door neighbour burns down the local grocery store. You shrug and stand by idly because it doesn't affect you. Your next-door neighbour starts shooting random people at the mall, you shrug because it doesn't affect you.
Your next-door neighbour steps on your rose garden, you shoot him dead.
Should you be praised for stopping a criminal? No. You're still a murderer, your actions just happened to have positive side effects.
Posted by Daryus Aden (Member # 12) on :
There are a couple of flaws in that analogy mucus. The first being that the next door neighbour didn't so much step on a rose patch as they walked into your house and blew up your collection of antique blackadder episodes.
In which case, your response in quite justified.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Actually, if you didint notify the police of those crimes, you'd be guilty after the fact. In the case you mentioned about doing nothing while he shot people: knowing about a crime and not doing anything would make you an accomplice and could even garner you a Murder in the Second Degree charge.
But nations arent citizens and prior to the end of WWII, there was not even a UN to complain to.
The US is currently being acused of "Imperilsm" for the war in Iraq and it's always pointed out that we dont intervene in other countries where atrocities happen every day.... Everyone wants political autonomy almost as much as they want to say "I told you so".
How can a country stand idly by while such things happen without coming across as "imperialistic"?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
Not really, since the first series of Blackadder wasn't nearly as good as the following three. I could do without it.
And, if we're really trying to go with this analogy, surely the response the US did to having their video collection destroyed was to go to their neighbours house and level it to the ground?
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jason Abbadon: How can a country stand idly by while such things happen without coming across as "imperialistic"?
Well, if you believe that the US government was really sitting there thinking "We have to stop Saddam. He's being just too gosh darn evil to his neighbours and the people who live in Iraq itself. It will cost us, but we must do this selfless act, just to help them", then you can't.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
I'm not just talking about this particular war, but ideolgy plays a large part of the public support needed to sustain any conflict on that scale.
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"Based on what we know now, were the bombings justified?"
I'd still have to say no, because, when you respond to a massacre (or, rather, when you strike back at an imperialist aggressor for sinking your precious battleships when you would have been happy to stay on the sidelines and let said aggressor continue its reign of terror unabated) with two hideous bloodbaths of your own and then later tack on some cop-out story that you were first and foremost engaged in the war to bring a halt to the humanitarian crimes perpetrated by your enemy, how are you any different from the slaughterers? But more than that it's a question of emotional detachment: I'm not a survivor of a Japanese death camp. My family wasn't murdered at Nanjing. It's impossible for me to feel anything other than sorrow for the inhabitants of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The bombings weren't justified in my (non-Chinese) eyes, but maybe they were in yours, in which case nothing I can say will ever change that.
The US is currently being acused of "Imperilsm" for the war in Iraq and it's always pointed out that we dont intervene in other countries where atrocities happen every day....
I think that attitude stems from the fact that, when you do intervene in other countries, it's always out of some motivated self-interest (Bosnia excluded) and never out of commiseration for the plight of the people in them.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Not exactly. Yes, the US leadership always tacks on some bullshit reason to placate those that scream over the financial costs of the war but the people actually engaged in the fighting sure arent risking their lived for oil or enforcments of UN sanctions: not that we'll ever see a financial profit from these wars- Iraq included. The Bosnia mess should have been averted two years prior o our involvment but many in congress pointed out that there was no public support for involvment and that we'd be spending billions (and risking US lives) with no financial return. I'm sad to say that the US only became directly involved in stopping the conflict once public support was roused by horrifing new stories every night nad once the slaughter was compared with that of the Nazis.
The people that really make the diffrence are out there- giving everything- for the ideal of helping others and making a bad situation better.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
"...the people actually engaged in the fighting sure arent risking their lived for oil or enforcments of UN sanctions..."
Well, no. They're doing it because they were told to. And it's what they get paid for.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
The US military was in NO position to oppose either Japanese or German forces before 1942. There was a buildup of forces underway but the existing units were typically undermanned, undertrained, and using mostly obsolescent equipment. In fact, most operations that occured before 1943 were limited in scope and done more as an annoyance than an attempt to inflict true damage on enemy forces. While we were supplying both the Chinese and British with arms we were attempting to remain out of the conflict itself while preparing for the probability of war.
It is funny, but AT&T at the time was actually wanting the US to side WITH GERMANY because of its vast interest financially in providing services to the Germans.
But, to say that the US is evil because of the A-bombings is misguided. War is WAR. There are no innocent combatants on ANY side. There are those who will do evil in any armed force as there are also those who will not do evil. The goals of a military in war are to kill people and break things. The sad thing is that KNOWING this, there are those who would STILL subject their own people to war in order to maintain their own power and further their own megalomaniacal aims.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by TSN:
"...the people actually engaged in the fighting sure arent risking their lived for oil or enforcments of UN sanctions..."
Well, no. They're doing it because they were told to. And it's what they get paid for.
And yet, the Vietnam conflict clearly demonstrated the folly of going to war without public support. Soldiers dont vote for Bush because they're told to- it's because they feel a sense of pride in what they're doing.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by WizArtist: In fact, most operations that occured before 1943 were limited in scope and done more as an annoyance than an attempt to inflict true damage on enemy forces.
So the Blitz was merely an "annoyance"? I'm sure Coventry will be thrilled.
quote: But, to say that the US is evil because of the A-bombings is misguided. War is WAR. There are no innocent combatants on ANY side.
The people living in Hiroshima and Nagasaki were combatants?
And thank god we've cleared up Sept 11. It wasn't a terrorist strike. Al Quaeda were merealy attacking enemy combatants.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
Isn't the "there were no civilian casualties in the A-bomb attacks" supposed to be Omega's argument?
Posted by Masao (Member # 232) on :
I�m afraid that I have to accept that if I were president of the US in August 1945, I probably would�ve ordered at least the first bomb to be dropped. The US had already sustained 1 million casualties (killed and wounded) in the war. Truman had a weapon, developed at the cost of several billion dollars, that had the potential of immediately forcing the Japanese to surrender at the cost of no further American lives. His primarily responsibility was to the American people, not to innocent Japanese noncombatants, so he took the chance that the bombs would force surrender, even if he couldn�t be sure. Of course, the Japanese might have surrended before the end of 1945 even without the bombs or invasion because of starvation, blockades, the destruction of all major cities, and the Soviet declaration of war, but who knows if they would have? Truman certainly couldn�t be sure. He wanted the war to end as quickly as possible. Furthermore, Japanese civilians were already being killed at a rate of tens of thousands per air raid, so the possibility of killing more with fewer bombs (and fewer US aircrews at risk) might have seemed an attractive proposition rather than an inhibitor.
My father lived through the war in Japan. He has told me he believes the bombs were necessary to end the war. In 1975, Hirohito said in his one and only press conference that the atomic bombings �had to happen.� Militarists were willing to fight to the bitter end, so shocking either them or Hirohito himself into stopping the fighting was necessary.
Posted by Balaam Xumucane (Member # 419) on :
One of my uncles was a Bataan survivor though he didn't live long (or very comfortably) after. War is by it's very nature a hiddeous and horrific atrocity. It's supposed to be. That's why they call it war. That's why it's supposed to be a last resort. Which plainly it wasn't in Iraq.
Which would be, for those who don't grasp this, the irony given that this was Alfred Nobel's very personal guilt-driven motivation for creating these awards (funded as they were by the very profits of war). Somehow I doubt we'll ever see a Cheney Peace Prize.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by WizArtist: In fact, most operations that occured before 1943 were limited in scope and done more as an annoyance than an attempt to inflict true damage on enemy forces. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So the Blitz was merely an "annoyance"? I'm sure Coventry will be thrilled.
I think he was refering to US operations. Despite the US habit of playing down British involvement in the war; after all, we all know the US won WWII single handed, with no help whatsoever from the Commonwealth and Empire or anyone else . I notice there are now textbooks for US schoolchildren that have WWII running from 1941-45. Not US involvement, but the entire war. And they wonder why we get pissed off with them.
I would have dropped the first bomb certainly; the need for the second is more debatable (Basically, I agree with Masao's post above).
Posted by Cartman (Member # 256) on :
"War is WAR."
While this may burst your admittedly very thin bubble, there are also RULES in war, and those rules are written for a reason.
"There are no innocent combatants on ANY side."
No, but there ARE innocent NON-combatants, aka CIVILIANS, on EVERY side.
"...the Vietnam conflict clearly demonstrated the folly of going to war without public support."
Only in its later years, though. The war went on for half a decade before protests (which themselves arose out of the strengthening civil rights movement) grew loud enough to be heard in DC, and popular approval didn't really begin to erode until 1969. But that's yet another topic.
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith: So the Blitz was merely an "annoyance"? I'm sure Coventry will be thrilled.
I think he was refering to US operations. Despite the US habit of playing down British involvement in the war; after all, we all know the US won WWII single handed, with no help whatsoever from the Commonwealth and Empire or anyone else . I notice there are now textbooks for US schoolchildren that have WWII running from 1941-45. Not US involvement, but the entire war. And they wonder why we get pissed off with them.
I would have dropped the first bomb certainly; the need for the second is more debatable (Basically, I agree with Masao's post above). [/QUOTE] Man, what are you talking about? is that really how you view the US?
Anybody in the US that's ever watched an hour of History Channel (more properly called the WWII channel) would have Britan's role in WWII forever drilled into their skulls and etched on their retnias. I can recall documentaries on the british decoding the Enigma devices as far back as elementary school.
I've certainly never seen any textbook refer to WWII as running only during US involvment and never anything that "downplayed" British involvment at all. Lose that chip on your shoulder: if anyone's countries have their participation downplayed it's Australlia and Canada. They get zero credit...even in the movies.
Posted by Lee (Member # 393) on :
quote:I can recall documentaries on the British decoding the Enigma devices as far back as elementary school.
But for most people I suspect one crummy Matthew McConaghey movie told them all they needed to know. . .
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Hmmm...I'd hope not. That's like saying that all you need to know about WWII can be learned by watching Pearl Harbor and Saving Private Ryan.
...and even if that was how you viewed the war in general, it'd still be more accurate than some of the hollywood schlock WWII movies from the 50's (John Wayne nonsense in particular). Sure made the kiddies gung-ho to prove themselves in war though. ...and they got plenty of chances in the 50's and 60's. Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
So was it not as bad for the America AND Britain to bomb German cities? Do you realize that the USAAF of WW2 lost more men in four years over Europe than ALL US forces lost in Vietnam? The reason for the bombings of cities in WW2 was to stop PRODUCTION of war material. Without the civilian turning out tanks, planes, and munitions the enemy will lose its fighting ability.
Allied forces were looking at shifting a massive amount of men from one theatre of operations to another half way around the world to fight yet another enemy. Morale would have been in the toilet not to mention the logistic nightmare. There were elements at the top of the Japanese heirarchy that would have willingly fought to the death...for themselves and their entire nation. Had it been America facing such a threat, or Britain for that matter, would we have reacted any different?
You will never find me belittling the efforts of Brits, Aussies, Canucks, or anyone. If you want to see where WW2 was at its worst and who endured the worst of it, read about RUSSIA. Leningrad, Kursk (the largest tank battle of WW2) The Russians suffered far more than either Britain and America. But when do we see THEIR stories?
Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
Well....it's not as if Stalin would recognise the strains his men had to endure or his alliance with Hitler or the bad decisions his commanders occasionally made, the starvation of the troops in winter, or the ammo shortages, having to "borrow" american made planes, or the crazy schemes and fortune telling of his closest advisors or hiding Hitler's remains to piss off the Allies ....so many stories went untold.
It was hard to tell war stories that'd get you shot back in Soviet Ruussia under Stalin.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
In America, you shoot gun.
In Soviet Russia, gun shoot you.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
In Britain, gun stops for tea.
Posted by Wraith (Member # 779) on :
NKVD; charming individuals.
quote: Man, what are you talking about? is that really how you view the US?
Yes. The sheer quantity of crap that is pumped over here, especially from Hollywood has certainly contributed to this- Pearl Harbor, U-571, Saving Private Ryan, etc, etc. Then there's the number of Americans, both in the UK and in America who have made comments about the UK being effectively irrelevant to the war effort. The constant bleating from you politicians about how we (and the Europeans) should do whatever the US tells them because 'we won the war.' Yes, the US was vital in the war effort and in all liklihood we would have ended up with a Nazi or Soviet Europe (neither terribly attractive propositions) without US aid but it just gets a bit much. I suppose I should've learned to live with it by now.
quote: I've certainly never seen any textbook refer to WWII as running only during US involvment
That's a new thing; there was an article in the Times about their introduction. I've read US books that belittle British and Imperial contributions.
quote: if anyone's countries have their participation downplayed it's Australlia and Canada
Not over here. They came when we asked for help, in both wars; without them, we would've been screwed, especially in 1940. the Poles and Czechs, too.
Posted by Veers (Member # 661) on :
I actually thought "Saving Private Ryan" was great, but "Pearl Harbor" and "U-571" were loads of crap. "Windtalkers", as well.
Posted by PsyLiam (Member # 73) on :
quote:Originally posted by Wraith:
quote: I've certainly never seen any textbook refer to WWII as running only during US involvment
That's a new thing; there was an article in the Times about their introduction. I've read US books that belittle British and Imperial contributions.
Almost every American publication I've ever seen lists the dates of World War II as 1941-1945, whereas Europe always lists it as 1939-1945.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 24) on :
Or 1937-1945 ocasionally in other countries. i.e.
quote: The war in Europe began on September 1, 1939, when Germany invaded Poland (Polish September Campaign). However, Japan had invaded China already in 1937 the (Second Sino-Japanese War), which sometimes is considered the start of the Second World War (Withdrawal of the Japanese after their defeat also catalysed the Chinese Communist Revolution.) Germany surrendered on May 7, 23:50 PM 1945, ending the war in Europe. The war in the Pacific ended on September 2, 1945, when Japan surrendered.
Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
I've never seen anything claim that WW2 started in 1941. I'm not saying they don't exist, but I don't think they're standard.
Posted by WizArtist (Member # 1095) on :
Technically speaking, the U.S. fired the first shot in the war with Japan on December 7th.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
. I notice there are now textbooks for US schoolchildren that have WWII running from 1941-45. Not US involvement, but the entire war. And they wonder why we get pissed off with them.![[Frown]](frown.gif)