Interview with WWII reconaissance pilot [Archive] - Official Fulqrum Publishing forum

swiss

10-14-2010, 03:03 AM

Ouch

"So I took off… I’m afraid to remember this till these days. I was drunk.
Germans were walking in crowds. A crowd. Trucks, tanks, horse drawn carts, people and so on.
There was no way I could refuse myself a pleasure to strafe them, especially since I was under effect of alcohol…
When I came back, all technicians came to take a look at my plane,
I brought tree branches, blood, pieces of clothes in my radiator intake."

Oleg !!!!!

Can we have.....................................

You forgot something to quote:

Get a pair of planes in the air to find retreating enemy!
...
was on 9 May. Some missions were flown on 10 May. There were no German fighters in the air, and AAA fired rarely. War was completely over on 11 May.

disgusting. :-x

also:

Crew commander was wounded by my shells, and soldiers on the ground beaten them up pretty good...

Avimimus

10-14-2010, 03:09 AM

Yes, it is always the problem with looking too closely at any history.

We see what it is.

History is almost never justified. But we can find truth in it.

Avimimus

10-14-2010, 03:11 AM

Oh, as usual - Bravo on the accuracy, the variety of questions and the depth to the history.
This work is a tremendous service.

The only thing that I could think of is to extend it to the Great Domestic War - to gather a few stories from factory workers, farmers - people who survived and kept the infrastructure going. I'm sure it would be fascinating for some of us a half-century later.

Hunden

10-14-2010, 04:59 AM

You forgot something to quote:

...

disgusting. :-x

also:

Yea so? would you rather he wave and say better luck next time.........:rolleyes:

swiss

10-14-2010, 05:15 AM

Yea so? would you rather he wave and say better luck next time.........:rolleyes:

Don't know about you, but I would never shoot someone in the back(aka retreating).
This is not an act war but pure murder - without the intention to capture them.

Hunden

10-14-2010, 06:35 AM

Don't know about you, but I would never shoot someone in the back(aka retreating).
This is not an act war but pure murder - without the intention to capture them.

The result is the same I think, murder or war your dead either way. Dont start them.:rolleyes:

Romanator21

10-14-2010, 06:36 AM

Don't know about you, but I would never shoot someone in the back(aka retreating).
This is not an act war but pure murder - without the intention to capture them.

Uhhh... no. Retreat does not exempt you as a target in war. You shoot them in the back any chance you get, or they'll do the same to you. War is war.

robtek

10-14-2010, 06:48 AM

The first thing lost in a war is humanity!
It' all about winning not petty feelings.
I don't like it, but thats the way it is.

Flanker35M

10-14-2010, 06:48 AM

S!

Be quiet! We know who won the war and killing Germans(soldiers and civilians alike, no discrimination) was justified because they were the root of all evil. Europe was liberated from fascist regime and came under protection of the communist wonder. What are you complain of? ;) :D

swiss

10-14-2010, 06:59 AM

Uhhh... no. Retreat does not exempt you as a target in war. You shoot them in the back any chance you get, or they'll do the same to you. War is war.

If they were just falling back to recollect - ok.

But it's may '45: they were already defeated, no danger coming from them, just running to surrender to the Americans rather than to the Red Army.

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?

WTE_Galway

10-14-2010, 07:07 AM

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?

The Australian's did that with Japanese prisoner's in the pacific a lot and had no qualms about it.

I think too many people here have been conned by the Bush/neo-con propaganda that a clean war where only "bad people" get hurt is possible :D

Romanator21

10-14-2010, 10:30 AM

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?

Yes, I whole-heartedly support mass execution. (lol)

But seriously, that's the reality of war. I would bet that if you were in such a situation you would not give a second thought to strafing those troops. It's only from your comfortable stress-free position at your desk, not having experienced years of horror in war, that you think otherwise. :)

Skoshi Tiger

10-14-2010, 11:21 AM

Don't know about you, but I would never shoot someone in the back(aka retreating).
This is not an act war but pure murder - without the intention to capture them.

If you've got a few minutes read up about the Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea.

A force of anywhere up to 16000 Japanese was defeated by about 2000 Australians because their comanding officer, Brigadier Potts, decided to disobey his orders (fight to the last man!) and stage a fighting withdrawl along the track. By the time the Japanese had got to within sight of Port Moresby thery were incapable of mounting any offensive action.

Just because someone is running away at the moment doesn't mean that their not waiting behind the next tree ready to put a bullet through you. It's called tactics.

Cheers!

FPSOlkor

10-14-2010, 01:22 PM

You forgot something to quote:

...

disgusting. :-x

also:

They ripped what they sawn:
Our garrison was blown to pieces, convicts were sent by trains to Kandalaksha, some of the NKVD officers were moved with them. We were hired personnel, so we had to take care of our selves. We had no idea where to move. My chief, Alexandrov said to me:
— If you have no place to go, come to Kronshtadt with me.
As we prepared to move, the survivors from Libava Naval base started arriving. Most of them lost their families there. There was one Captain, who was wounded, and whose wife was raped and killed for fun by German soldiers… He tried to save her, and saw what happened with his own eyes. He, himself, made it out of the Libava at the last possible moment.
Altogether our column consisted of almost 100 military men, and about the same amount of hired personnel. We were brought by trucks to the Oranienbaum area, and we hid in the forest during the daytime.
There was some General, and he ordered:
— If someone moves from this place, I will personally execute him! I’m going to Oranienbaum to find out where to go next…
And he left. For about 24 hours we heard nothing from him. We would cook food on a field kitchen, which was based on a truck. By the next morning we ran out of water. So, the officers told me and Shura (a typist from political department):
— Here is a 20 liter flask, there is a water tower across the road. You don’t look military in your civilian dresses. Go and bring some water.
So we went. The road was quite wide, and we were not in a hurry... And, suddenly, we heard the sound of airplane engine. At that time we did not know the sounds of German planes… Later we were able to tell from the sound, type, altitude and in which formation they were flying… But that was later. So this fighter dove on us and started firing with machine guns. Soldiers and officers were shouting to us from the forest:
— Run to the roadside!
So we did. I ran to one side of the road, Shura ran to the other… Meanwhile the German turned around, and fired at the flask that we dropped at the road, and flew away. For some time we did not dare to get out of the drainage trenches. When we got out, we found out that the flask was completely torn to pieces!
That was my “Baptism by fire”…

http://mig3.sovietwarplanes.com/pilots/antipina/antipina.htm

FPSOlkor

10-14-2010, 01:27 PM

If they were just falling back to recollect - ok.

But it's may '45: they were already defeated, no danger coming from them, just running to surrender to the Americans rather than to the Red Army.

From your point of view mass executions of POWs are ok too - I mean, they potentially could hold a gun, right?
Starting from the moment when capitulation was signed ALL German units were ORDERED to stop fighting and stay where they were/ If they DISOBEYEDORDER they were legitimate target. Example from the West - U-boat, whichwere hunted for for at least a month after hostilities ended.

Sternjaeger

10-14-2010, 02:51 PM

swiss, I see your point man, but we give our judgements in hindsight, these young guys back in those days had to deal with some seriously bad $hit..

Not to mention that the Germans weren't exactly a lovely peaceful buch during the war, were they? ;)

Flanker35M

10-14-2010, 02:54 PM

S!

Well, Red Army had a "slight" problem when approaching Germany and Berlin. Ilya Ehrenburg's speeches and the propaganda had driven the soldiers to a frenzy "to kill the nazis in their wombs, in their nest..kill them all, show no mercy, strike them down"..This worked fine when the war was not going well, troops rallied but closer to Germany how to restrain them anymore? They should come as a glorious Red Army, liberators of nazism brining freedom to the oppressed proletariat of Europe. So no wonder when reports of Red Army's acts on first German towns occupied reached civilians and soldiers = to west no matter what.

Rapes and other crimes were done by ALL sides of war, not just Germans. So no-one can sit on the high horse of morality and justify their acts. War is hell but no-one is clean.

Sternjaeger

10-14-2010, 03:12 PM

Splitter

10-14-2010, 03:57 PM

I understand the thought process of not shooting an enemy in the back, but the reality is that retreat is not surrender. Retreat is often characterized as a strategic withdrawal. The common soldiers did not know when the war was going to end. News was often conflicting or non-existent. So unless the other guy is surrendering, he is still an enemy.

Even surrender is not always surrender. There were more than a few instances of soldiers, especially in the Pacific, who came out under white flags with grenades or guns looking to take down a few conquerors with them.

Add to all of that the fact that the German and Russians fought a brutal war against one another. There was often no quarter given and none accepted. There was a good chance that capture meant death so soldiers fought desperately.

Crimes happened on all sides, they always do. But in some cases those crimes were common, in others they were the anomaly. We all know of instances like the Rape of Nanking where such "crimes" were the policy. However, to show all sides being equal, people like to focus on other incidents committed by one or a small number of soldiers. All things were not, in fact, equal.

Just think about it this way: you are an enemy soldier in WWII, to which countries would you rather surrender? We know who treated their prisoners "well" and who treated them brutally as policy, don't we?

Some of it depends on which country you were fighting for. Germany tended to treat British and American prisoners reasonably well and vice versa. Then again, there seemed to be a special hatred between German and Russian troops and neither side had a good track record of treating the other's prisoners very well.

Splitter

swiss

10-14-2010, 04:03 PM

As Pilot best option was to get shot down over, or lost in Switzerland.

We detained them in hotels in Bernese Alps. :grin:

Avimimus

10-14-2010, 05:38 PM

Blackdog_kt

10-14-2010, 11:11 PM

I think Avinimus summed it up quite nicely.

The moment i think i'm above the law, or even common sense as to what constitutes basic human rights, is the moment i justify my opponents to use the same methods against me ;)

WTE_Galway

10-14-2010, 11:43 PM

Some of it depends on which country you were fighting for. Germany tended to treat British and American prisoners reasonably well and vice versa. Then again, there seemed to be a special hatred between German and Russian troops and neither side had a good track record of treating the other's prisoners very well.

Splitter

With regard to the German attitude to the Soviets there are a number of factors here but three stand out:

- British and US soldiers (aside from African Americans) were seen by Germans as racially advanced whereas the Slavic races were regarded as "under races".
- Britain, US and German all had signed the Geneva Convention,. Russia had not. this gave the German's a loophole to ignore the Geneva Convention with Russian troops.
- Wehrmacht troops committed war crimes but SS divisions were far worse

In terms of the Pacific war there was a huge difference between Japanese Navy personnel and Japanese army. The Japanese Navy was very professional, treated prisoners with respect and in fact often tried to avoid handing POW's over to the Japanese army as they knew they were being systematically abused.

Australians, traditionally quite fearless and ruthless, tended to not take prisoners at all and not accept surrender in the field killing them immediatley. However once they got stuck with a prisoner they usually treated them well.

Splitter

10-14-2010, 11:54 PM

Canadian soldiers also "took no prisoners" on several occasions (including near the end of the war). Such war crimes are often committed by soldiers with limited combat experience, however, there also seems to be a rule that soldiers from any country will tend to commit atrocities if the war goes on long enough (and their superiors/home country tolerates the crimes). Instead of allowing crimes to take place or not punishing them, there are also cases where warcrimes are part of a strategic choice. Given the right 'logic' and public indifference or support conscious policies to target civilians are also possible in many more societies than we'd like to pretend (eg. Canadian's firebombing Germany, NATO strategic nuclear arms).

It should be said that this in no way removes the burden from any country that committed atrocities, or failed to prevent or prosecute those committing atrocities. The disturbing thing about some of the killings of civilians that have come to light recently (Iraq, Afghanistan) is that the public has been 'prepared' enough not to be shocked and there is a growing sense that such crimes are "worth overlooking" for the greater cause.

In the case of Germany there was something unusual which was politically and culturally very deeply wrong - German troops committed atrocities against Italian civilians and even German civilians by the end of the war (althoguh, the scale of these atrocities is much less than those committed on the eastern front, in Warsaw or in the former Yugoslavia).

The point I'm making, is simply that all societies - to a greater or lesser degree - are capable of creating these types of situations or atrocities and that it is our responsibility - each single person in each country in the world - to ensure that:
- they are remembered
- that they are never condoned or minimised
- that we create a world where they are not possible

We are all responsible - not Stalin or Hitler or 'bomber' Harris or the Joint Chiefs - not a few 'bad apples' in the lower ranks - not the fact that the other side committed atrocities first or refuses to follow the 'rules' or the brutality of war itself.

OK...but name a war where civilians did not die. In war, civilians die too. No matter how careful a military might be in their target selection and execution, civilians sometimes end up on the wrong end of a bomb or bullet.

Note also that when some enemies figure out that the other side is trying to avoid civilian casualties, they start using civilians as shields. So in that case, who is to blame when civilians die?

There is a big difference between what the Japanese did to...well, just about everyone they conquered or captured...and what a few Allied troops did to enemy soldiers on occasion. Both are wrong but to far different degrees.

The good guys are never 100% pure just as the bad guys are seldom 100% evil, but there is still a big difference between the two. When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Just a small point, but Stalin and Hitler do not equate to "bomber Harris" or the Joint Chiefs or Churchill.

I'm not going to hold straffing enemy troops against a Russian recon pilot. I won't hold bombing a radar station filled with non-combat personnel against a German Stuka pilot. I won't hold dead civilians against a bomber pilot who missed the target or didn't have a weapon with enough precision to hit only the factory. And I won't hold civilian casualties against any pilot who was doing his job and trying to end a war.

Splitter

Avimimus

10-15-2010, 12:58 AM

OK...but name a war where civilians did not die. In war, civilians die too. No matter how careful a military might be in their target selection and execution, civilians sometimes end up on the wrong end of a bomb or bullet.

Note also that when some enemies figure out that the other side is trying to avoid civilian casualties, they start using civilians as shields. So in that case, who is to blame when civilians die?

There is a big difference between what the Japanese did to...well, just about everyone they conquered or captured...and what a few Allied troops did to enemy soldiers on occasion. Both are wrong but to far different degrees.

The good guys are never 100% pure just as the bad guys are seldom 100% evil, but there is still a big difference between the two. When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Just a small point, but Stalin and Hitler do not equate to "bomber Harris" or the Joint Chiefs or Churchill.

I'm not going to hold straffing enemy troops against a Russian recon pilot. I won't hold bombing a radar station filled with non-combat personnel against a German Stuka pilot. I won't hold dead civilians against a bomber pilot who missed the target or didn't have a weapon with enough precision to hit only the factory. And I won't hold civilian casualties against any pilot who was doing his job and trying to end a war.

Splitter

I don't equate them - except that all have some command responsibility.

I think the point I'm getting at is that it is always tragic. It doesn't matter how or why it happens - except insofar as knowing how or why allows us to prevent it from happening again.

I'd go so far as to say all civilians and all military of all nations bear some responsibility for preventing civilian deaths and war crimes. Of course, the country committing the war crime and the individuals involved bear much more responsibility.

But, if we really want to deal with an event like the Holocaust, we have to realise that it is ot just the Einsatzgruppen, nor Hitler, nor the German people, nor the international Eugenics movement, nor the generations of anti-Semite propagandist, nor patriotist "my country right or wrong" attitudes alone which bear responsibility to face what was done (and prevent it from happening again).

If humans can behave this way to other humans, then it means all of humanity - even those not yet born - must take some of the shame and have courage to be eternally vigilant.

I don't blame the pilot, I think it is tragic that he was ever in such a position or that those people were killed. I'd extend this to a lot of other people.

WTE_Galway

10-15-2010, 01:07 AM

There are no just wars and no good guys and bad guys in war. Just poor suckers killing each other because some politician decided they should.

The rational thing for the politicians to do is initially be pacifist and try at all costs to avoid a war and then if that finally fails become ruthless and meticulous and deadly.

The British did it right in WWII. Chamberlain was essential attempt at pacifism (which maybe went on a touch to long) and Churchill represented the flip side of ruthless pragmatic killing at all costs once the pacifism had failed.

In recent history George W Bush got it wrong on two counts.

First he was jumping willy nilly if not gleefully into wars for political personal and ideological reasons and far far to early with little reason or cause. No attempt to explore other options, he was too gun happy and gave the impression he was off on a deer hunt.

But even worse once he committed he was half-hearted about it, pretty much assuming the other side would somehow be awed by his impressive military strutting about and just roll over and play dead while the populace would welcome him and the troops would be home by Xmas :D

It's like the old street fighter adage "Do not threaten with a knife. You never pull a knife until you have no choice because once knives appear someone is going to get messed up".

Theshark888

10-15-2010, 01:43 AM

The rational thing for the politicians to do is initially be pacifist and try at all costs to avoid a war and then if that finally fails become ruthless and meticulous and deadly.

If the French and British would have stood up to Hitler and lost a few hundred lives, millions of people would have been saved from WW2. Especially after knowing the consequences of a war against the same side 20 years earlier! Who was being rational?

You do remember the First Gulf War and how it was left unfinished? We all knew at the time back in '91 we would have to go back and finish the job at some point. The reason we went in the way we did in '03 was by the stab in the back by Turkey and the reduction of the size of our Army under Clinton.

War is hell and every side has its atrocities. The only way to win is to use all available force to break the will of the enemy. There is a huge difference between fire bombing an enemy city, shooting captured soldiers, selling iron ore to the Nazi regime, raping 12 year old girls, doing nothing while watching an ally being invaded, hiding behind neutrality to avoid a just cause, or loading people into boxcars to their deaths.:(

Splitter

10-15-2010, 02:06 AM

Avivmimus, I agree. Nothing more to say except that the sins of the father cannot be visited upon the son. All of us that were "there" when something happened bare some responsibility, good or ill. Those not yet born...no, I can't say that.

Just an example: The German people of the time bare some responsiblity for Hitler. They let him come to power out of desperation. The rest of the world has some culpability for not stopping him before he he became too powerful. Do either of us (you or I) have any responsibility for his actions? Should a present day German feel any shame for his actions or the actions of their forefathers? I say no.

Galway, there are just wars and justified killings. I don't buy that there are no good guys and no bad guys. If your premise is correct, Churchill = Hitler. Roosevelt = Stalin. I don't buy that.

If you go to war to protect people from oppression who cannot protect themselves, is that not justified? I would say that is maybe the best reason to go to war morally. If I knowingly let my neighbor be tortured and killed by some bad guy and never go to their aid, am I not "guilty" in some respect?

If you go to war to protect your country, is that not justified? If you kill someone who seeks to do you harm, is that not justified?

Was Bush right? I seriously don't know. I would not have done what he did....I would have gotten rid of Saddam and let the Iraqis sort if out for themselves. My solution would have probably ended up in a lot of bloodshed amongst the Iraqis. But, are the Iraqis better off today than they were under Saddam? I think most of them say yes. So was the war justified? You decide.

Heck, I don't like the guy, but he might just have been a better person...had a better vision...than me. He believed in the Iraqi people, I didn't. Neither do you. Maybe in the end you and I will be proven right, but so far we are wrong. They actually do seem to be capable of voting for their leaders and defending their fledgling democracy....we'll see though. Old hatreds die hard and the factions DO hate each other.

Perhaps they are just in an artificially induced lull in their hostilities toward one another. If that is the case, when they decide to start killing one another, should we all just stand back and see who wins? Are we then culpable, through our inaction, for all of the killing? If we intervene are we then just postponing the inevitable? These are probably questions the world is going to have to eventually answer.

Since the West probably knew about the concentration camps and the mass murders, were they somehow derelict in their moral duties by not attacking Germany? Is pacifism the only moral way? Or is it sometimes more "right" to go kill people to end their evil?

You are right in that you never bring a knife to a gunfight :). You either go into a fight full bore or don't go at all. Of course, if you go full bore there will be plenty of people there to criticize you for "over reacting".

So did this recon pilot somehow overreact in straffing retreating German troops? Did the pilot who landed his plane only to get out and shoot a downed German pilot because his family had been raped and killed by Germans overreact? Where the line is drawn is what is up for discussion....But I really don't think one should not be equated with the other.

Splitter

swiss

10-15-2010, 02:33 AM

When someone says there is no difference, the lines between good and evil become blurred and THAT is when I start to worry.

Because there are neither good nor evil guys - all lies in the eye of the beholder.
The good guys are always on your side - the bad boys the other; based on education and religious belief.

See, I don't blame the fundamentalists for fighting for their Kalifate, but I don't bother kicking their ass either.

Conflicts are a part of human history and they always pushed our evolution, pressure makes us achieve certain goals way faster.

Just make sure your side wins.

You do remember the First Gulf War and how it was left unfinished? We all knew at the time back in '91 we would have to go back and finish the job at some point. The reason we went in the way we did in '03 was by the stab in the back by Turkey and the reduction of the size of our Army under Clinton.

Sorry, I'll have to wave the bullshit flag.
First, your first Gulf War is the 2nd, the first being Iran(and the US) vs. Iraq.

2nd: There was nothing to clean up. Now, If G.W. said he wants to invade Iraq because he doesn't like Saddams face I could have been fine with that(well, almost).

What the US leave behind is not free country but a weak wannabe-democracy. We'll have to wait another 20 years too see what happens, it could turn out well - but there's another option.
While SH was bitch to his people, at least he had them under control , this control is now lost.
Worst case scenario is: Iran and Iraq could unite.
So, in ~20 years, we could face a fundamentalist super state with nuclear weapon capability which also controls roughly 30% all oil resources on the planet.

Have fun dealing with them.

Galway, there are just wars and justified killings. I don't buy that there are no good guys and no bad guys. If your premise is correct, Churchill = Hitler. Roosevelt = Stalin. I don't buy that.

I do.
They just did what they believed in.

Splitter

10-15-2010, 02:47 AM

Hey Swiss,

We are totally off topic now lol. So saying:

In the first Gulf War of which you speak...total brilliance from a strategic point of view at the time. They were fighting each other and NOT anyone else :). From a Machiavellian point of view, Ron did great there.

On the second part of your post, yeah, we had clean up to do because we stopped short the first time around. We didn't want to offend the pacifists of the world which, of course, lead to another war.

But your prediction for the future is all too possible. There is a simple answer to the looming threat, but not one anyone wants to actually undertake.

Splitter

swiss

10-15-2010, 02:53 AM

but not one anyone wants to actually undertake.

Splitter

Can you imagine they beauty of the setting sun being reflected in a desert made of glas?

:mrgreen:

Splitter

10-15-2010, 02:57 AM

Can you imagine they beauty of the setting sun being reflected in a desert made of glas?

:mrgreen:

Now THAT, my friend, would be an over reaction lol.

I'm sure we could get away with just one JDAM lol.

Splitter

WTE_Galway

10-15-2010, 03:25 AM

Splitter

10-15-2010, 03:55 AM

Well if you were going to TRY and claim a "just war" exists this century it would have to be the resistance by individuals in Iraq against incredible odds to repel foreign invasion that was illegal and ideologically/religious in motivation.

But personally I do not believe there is any such thing as a "just war". The idea of a "just war" is simply a fiction created by politicians of all sides to con the gullible public.

There are simply wars and your side does all it can to win as quickly and efficiently as possible.

The only people I see in opposition are funded and supplied by terrorist organizations whose hatred is based on religion. I'm not really seeing any patriotic Iraqi independence movement.

And if our motivation was religious...why are we not trying to convert them Tokemata style?

Is it ideological to think that people prefer democracy over dictatorship?

Hey, I'm not saying we went to war to free the Iraqi people. That was only putting a nice face on the fact that we went in to get Saddam. But in the end, the Iraqi people are now in charge of their own future for the first time in a long time. What they do with it is up to them.

To say there is never a just war is to say that a country should never go to war. That's a hard sell to a country that is being invaded or attacked. So if no wars are just, they must all be unjust, yes? Was the US going to war with Japan unjust? Was Russia going to war with Germany unjust? Was Britain's air defense in the BoB unjust?

I think it is perfectly valid to ask whether an action in a "just" war is "unjust" or not (Dresden for example), but the verdict on the action would not invalidate the "justness" of the war itself.

If countries are never justified in going to war, then an individual is never justified in defending themselves. So is a homeowner who shoots a home-invader guilty of an unjustified homicide?

Splitter

swiss

10-15-2010, 04:12 AM

So is a homeowner who shoots a home-invader guilty of an unjustified homicide?

Perfect example.

In Switzerland you'll spend the next 15 years jail, in Texas they will buy you a jug of beer.

Hunden

10-15-2010, 04:23 AM

[QUOTE=swiss;189654]Because there are neither good nor evil guys - all lies in the eye of the beholder.

And I quote
"Sorry, I'll have to wave the bullshit flag.

While SH was bitch to his people, at least he had them under control , this control is now lost."

The truth be told. Spoken like a true liberal, the people must be controlled for thier own good............:confused:

swiss

10-15-2010, 04:59 AM

The truth be told. Spoken like a true liberal, the people must be controlled for thier own good............:confused:

oh boy.

You are not that clueless I hope.

I'm talking about two groups: take a guess.

WTE_Galway

10-15-2010, 05:00 AM

Is it ideological to think that people prefer democracy over dictatorship?

Absolutely ... and so are the other classic US assumptions, that capitalism is good and that individual personal rights are paramount. These are ideological viewpoints that others may disagree with and need to be argued for, not obvious truths about the nature of the Cosmos.

It is pretty much only in the US that democracy is seen as some sort of infallibly perfect "one size fits all" solution that will solve all problems ... and its arguable whether even the US is truly a democracy anymore anyway, for starters most politicians are career politicians who started their apprenticeship for public office with one major party or other sometime around leaving high school so the US is ruled by a "political class" of power brokers.

In actual fact democracy only works in educated relatively well off first world countries such as the US. Even then it is generally corrupted by corporate business interests but in a first world country that does not really matter.

In a third world country where the population is illiterate and poor and the media is controlled by political, religious or business interests elections tend to be a farce and that is before you consider vote rigging.

Democracy does not work in the third world.

One of the most amusing things about US politics though is the way the main proponents of bringing "democracy" to the rest of the world, the far right, really do not actually believe in democracy at all. they believe in "good old American values" and feel have a god given right to rule and that everyone else should just acknowledge that and do as they are told :D

K_Freddie

10-15-2010, 06:20 AM

Great stuff .. as usual - thanks FPSOlkor :)

We were returning from a mission, one Il was coming back with a large hole in the wing. I positioned myself over him, and said:
— Humpback, humpback, through a hole in your wing I’m viewing landmarks.
He replied:
— F.CK YOU…!!!
:grin::grin::grin:

Avimimus

10-15-2010, 02:24 PM

Avivmimus, I agree. Nothing more to say except that the sins of the father cannot be visited upon the son. All of us that were "there" when something happened bare some responsibility, good or ill. Those not yet born...no, I can't say that.

I think I see where our disagreement is: I'm talking about "crime and responsibility" versus "crime and punishment".

If a bystander witnesses a crime, they may have some responsibility - if not to stop it, then to testify in court. Similarly, if someone sees a situation which could lead to crime, they have some responsibility to investigate it further and advocate changes that can help prevent it.

I think it was wise to only punish higher level NAZI party leaders and some of the worst war criminals at lower ranks. It is important to not let people get away with such crimes. I wouldn't advocate grabbing your average Hitler youth and fining them for having been a NAZI. However, I might ensure that they look at photos of what their regime had done.

I don't think a time will ever come where Germans can say that they no longer need to know about the Holocaust - that it is time to completely give up that guilt. Their society had an unusual experience and part of correcting that experience is learning from it. So all German's should take responsibility to help ensure such events can never happen again, anywhere.

I'm saying that I'm willing to share in this guilt and responsibility. With the last few people from that war passing on now, we're all bystanders.

If you go to war to protect people from oppression who cannot protect themselves, is that not justified? I would say that is maybe the best reason to go to war morally. If I knowingly let my neighbor be tortured and killed by some bad guy and never go to their aid, am I not "guilty" in some respect?

I think a distinction needs to be made between "necessary" and "just" or "good". There are times where it is necessary to go to war - there are times when it is even the right choice. But, the result is still horrible and evil.

In other words, it is possible to have a justified war, but not a just one.

So did this recon pilot somehow overreact in straffing retreating German troops? Did the pilot who landed his plane only to get out and shoot a downed German pilot because his family had been raped and killed by Germans overreact? Where the line is drawn is what is up for discussion....But I really don't think one should not be equated with the other.

Splitter

I don't think any war-crimes can ever be equated. Each one happened to different people. This is even true of each different crime in the Holocaust.

Splitter

10-15-2010, 03:17 PM

Swiss: Gawd Bless Texas then lol. Actually, in the vast majority of states here, the homeowner would probably be ok. The District Attorney may choose to prosecute in certain states (like mine) but he/she would be hard pressed to get a jury to convict. It's sad that people are not allowed to protect themselves in their own homes.

Avimimus: Understood. That is why remembering history is so important.

Galway: Our left is much more controlling than our right. You are correct in that neo-cons feel the need to spread democracy, but they are a shrinking group now and their party is being taken over by traditional conservatives.

Yeah, I'll stick to the theory that being able to choose your leaders is a good thing that most people in the world want. Corruption happens everywhere and no system is perfect, but people tend to choose freedom. The question is only whether they are willing to fight for that freedom. I am surprised that you think that democracy should only be reserved for the well off.

In talking about career politicians....you pretty much described out current leadership lol. There is a backlash against those politicians going on now, watch our elections closely next month to see.

We are so far off target now I can't even see the Russian recon pilot lol. Sorry people. I do take my hat off to the men (and women) who flew those birds into combat. Death was a daily companion and killing was expected. No "Refly" button.

Splitter

Triggaaar

10-15-2010, 03:41 PM

disgusting. :-x

Don't know about you, but I would never shoot someone in the back(aka retreating).
This is not an act war but pure murder - without the intention to capture them.

If they were just falling back to recollect - ok.

But it's may '45: they were already defeated, no danger coming from them, just running to surrender to the Americans rather than to the Red Army.I guess we're all entitled to our opinion, and I strongly disagree with yours. I don't know what it's like to suffer at the hands of an invading army, to lose close friends and family, and hear their tales of torture, rape etc, so I couldn't say I would act towards that invading army with total dignity. My guess is I'd shoot.

And depleted and running these men may have been, but they still had weapons, and some of them will still have shot allied soldiers and innocent civilians.

Avimimus

10-16-2010, 12:27 AM

Avimimus: Understood. That is why remembering history is so important.

I'm glad.

It looks like you Gents are having a debate on a fascinating topic (how committed different parts of society really are to democracy) and I'd love to jump in - but I feel we are a long way from the original focus of the thread. It is also a fascinating topic though.

Hunden

10-16-2010, 02:11 AM

oh boy.

You are not that clueless I hope.

I'm talking about two groups: take a guess.

Maybe I'm clueless what group needed to be controlled? The group with the AKs or the group with the RPGs:confused:

Theshark888

10-17-2010, 10:13 PM

In actual fact democracy only works in educated relatively well off first world countries such as the US. Democracy does not work in the third world.

Shocking view of the world. Smells of typical European elitism. I think you need to do some research about Democracy and you will see the huge amount of benefits that this system has. Do you think this country was a Super Power when it was founded??????????:)

America acts the way it does today because we were dragged into 2 World Wars and the next would be an even worse catastrophe. The same reason we stayed in Europe, Japan, . Korea, etc.

swiss

10-18-2010, 03:22 AM

Maybe I'm clueless what group needed to be controlled? The group with the AKs or the group with the RPGs:confused:

The two religious groups - your description fits pretty well.

swiss

10-18-2010, 03:34 AM

Shocking view of the world. Smells of typical European elitism. I think you need to do some research about Democracy and you will see the huge amount of benefits that this system has. Do you think this country was a Super Power when it was founded??????????:)

America acts the way it does today because we were dragged into 2 World Wars and the next would be an even worse catastrophe. The same reason we stayed in Europe, Japan, . Korea, etc.

For democracy to work you need the right people first - the ones in the 3rd world are not yet ready.[you have no idea about their mentality, I suggest you research]

Africa:
Defacto you would have to recolonize them, make sure the money goes where it's supposed to, and make sure you educate the people.

Once >70% of the people can read and write, you can give it another try.
Sounds like work for ~70 years.

Or we can just wait, we'll get the same result in 200 years or so.

Islam:
They just need their contemporary version of Luther and a elephant dose of enlightenment. Or just wait another 3 to 400 years...

drewpee

10-18-2010, 02:23 PM

Imagine there's no Heaven
It's easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us only sky
Imagine all the people
Living for today

Imagine there's no countries
It isn't hard to do
Nothing to kill or die for
And no religion too
Imagine all the people
Living life in peace

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will be as one

Imagine no possessions
I wonder if you can
No need for greed or hunger
A brotherhood of man
Imagine all the people
Sharing all the world

You may say that I'm a dreamer
But I'm not the only one
I hope someday you'll join us
And the world will live as one

True words of wisdom.
:grin:

Splitter

10-18-2010, 02:39 PM

Sounds like a communist utopia :).

1) There are things in those lyrics that would not make the world a better place in the view of many of us.
2) It would only take one person with ambition, political objectives, desire of power, or simply having a bad day to mess up the utopia in that song. People have always been, are, and will always be imperfect.
3) Cool song. Really, we played it at our wedding and everyone danced to it. I don't know anyone who hates that song.
4) I choose to take the song as someone's "dream" rather than a political manifesto. Drugs were probably involved in that dream lol.

Splitter

drewpee

10-18-2010, 02:47 PM

You cut me deep Splitter. Next thing you'll be saying is Farther Christmas isn't real and SOW won't be released this year.
:(

Splitter

10-18-2010, 03:03 PM

You cut me deep Splitter. Next thing you'll be saying is Farther Christmas isn't real and SOW won't be released this year.
:(

1) I am holding out hope that SoW will be released this year. (really, it's possible if a publisher has been chosen)
2) Who ever said that Father Christmas/Santa Clause was not real?! Communist propaganda I say! lol
3) I am so attractive that my wife never even looks at other men. I know because she told me so.

Yes, I am the gullible slob at whom all advertising is directed :).

Splitter

K_Freddie

10-18-2010, 07:06 PM

JL was a communist with religious tendencies. He was advocating a one party state, no wonder any establishment didn't like him, except for the communists though. I mean look at all those drug taking, dirty long haired, unclean hippies listening to revolting music that surrounded suggestive lyrics - the pure makings of an evil empire.

The Grinch exists, but sorry Father Christmas doesn't. :(, my kids tell me so and SOW is first 1/4 next year
;)

ATAG_Dutch

10-18-2010, 07:45 PM

If the French and British would have stood up to Hitler and lost a few hundred lives, millions of people would have been saved from WW2. Especially after knowing the consequences of a war against the same side 20 years earlier!

Sorry, but can you explain this statement please?
Only I was under the impression that we declared war on him, and lost a bit more than a 'few hundred lives' whilst 'standing up to Hitler' during the Norwegian Campaign, the Battle of France, subsequently in the Battle of Britain and the Battle of the Atlantic, also during the bombing campaign and North Africa.
Where exactly do you see complacency in Britain's actions prior to the USA's involvement? Northern France was steamrollered into armistice and the rest of France capitulated.
How would Britain and France therefore prevent the invasion of The Soviet Union?
More importantly from the USA's perspective, how would Britain and France have prevented Pearl Harbour? Or Hitler's declaration of war on the US?
Please, enlighten me.
Thanks.

Theshark888

10-19-2010, 01:12 AM

Where exactly do you see complacency in Britain's actions prior to the USA's involvement?

Resumption of the draft in Germany breaking the 100K army limit
Reoccupying the Rhineland
Ansclhuss with Austria
Breakup of Czechoslovakia
German Non-Agression pact with Soviet Union
Invasion of Poland

If France and Great Britain would have taken decisive action at any point of these events, Germany would have collapsed and the European side of World War 2 would have been averted. This would include a reconnaisance in force across the Rhine as soon as Poland was attacked. Of course this has more to do with France, since they are connected to the continent and had the land army to do this! It remains to be seen what Stalin would have done with no Nazi Germany next to him also?!

If Japan was still to be foolish and attack the USA at Pearl Harbor the entire weight of the US military (along with the Allies) would have been focused on Imperial Japan---no 75%-25% Euro/Asia split. It would have collapsed much more quickly then it did saving 100's of thousands of deaths.

I am just of the belief that sometimes it is better to do what needs to be done instead of discussing and talking about it and waiting for someone else to do it. When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland France and Great Britain should have invoked the Versailles Treaty, immediately mobilized and given it an ultimatum.

My opinion is not meant to be disrespectful of the lives lost by our Allies in the fight against tyrannny...but I still think that Soviet pilot was wrong and deserves to be reprimanded or lose his wings:grin:

swiss

10-19-2010, 01:31 PM

Resumption of the draft in Germany breaking the 100K army limit
Reoccupying the Rhineland Job for the French?
Ansclhuss with Austria Austria was was part of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation for the preceding 500 years.
Breakup of Czechoslovakia You mean "NOT" break them up? Munich Agreement
German Non-Agression pact with Soviet Union Stalin was ready(and had the intention) to invade Germany, they were just faster.
Invasion of Poland Too late. The German Army was already in full bloom

If France and Great Britain would have taken decisive action at any point of these events, Germany would have collapsed and the European side of World War 2 would have been averted. This would include a reconnaisance in force across the Rhine as soon as Poland was attacked.
What about the British Expedition Korps?
Of course this has more to do with France, since they are connected to the continent and had the land army to do this! LOLOLOLOL
It remains to be seen what Stalin would have done with no Nazi Germany next to him also?! See above
If Japan was still to be foolish and attack the USA at Pearl Harbor the entire weight of the US military (along with the Allies) would have been focused on Imperial Japan---no 75%-25% Euro/Asia split. It would have collapsed much more quickly then it did saving 100's of thousands of deaths.
I have to remember you that the war with Japan was your own fault - and had nothing to do with Hitler on the other side of the planet
I am just of the belief that sometimes it is better to do what needs to be done instead of discussing and talking about it and waiting for someone else to do it. When Germany reoccupied the Rhineland France and Great Britain should have invoked the Versailles Treaty, immediately mobilized and given it an ultimatum. You need an capable Army for that, neither France nor the UK had one of this size and equipment. ;)

My opinion is not meant to be disrespectful of the lives lost by our Allies in the fight against tyrannny...but I still think that Soviet pilot was wrong and deserves to be reprimanded or lose his wings:grin:

You can't take his wings. After all he just executed an order, you can't punish him for that.
I would have done the sortie too - but, unfortunately, miss all the bullets....

lobosrul

10-19-2010, 04:32 PM

If Japan was still to be foolish and attack the USA at Pearl Harbor the entire weight of the US military (along with the Allies) would have been focused on Imperial Japan---no 75%-25% Euro/Asia split. It would have collapsed much more quickly then it did saving 100's of thousands of deaths.
I have to remember you that the war with Japan was your own fault - and had nothing to do with Hitler on the other side of the planet

How exactly was the war with Japan our fault (I assume you mean the US when you say "our") again? We refused to supply them for their conquest (rape) of China. So thats grounds for a war? And yes the European conflict was relative. Japan would never have dared attack the allies and the US without them also being in a war with Germany. Then again they didn't actually know for sure that attack the US would bring them into war with Germany. It was Hitler that declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor.

Breakup of Czechoslovakia You mean "NOT" break them up? Munich Agreement

He meant the annexation of the Sudentenland that was allowed under appeasement. Czechoslovakia was certainly broken up.

If France and Great Britain would have taken decisive action at any point of these events, Germany would have collapsed and the European side of World War 2 would have been averted. This would include a reconnaisance in force across the Rhine as soon as Poland was attacked.
What about the British Expedition Korps?

He meant if a combined French and English force had attacked immediately after Germany's invasion of Poland in september 1939, instead of waiting for Germany to invade the low countries in spring 1940. Germany only left a very small force guarding their western border during the Polish invasion. There's considerable historical debate on whether or not the western allies could have defeated Germany right then. IMO, yes they could have had they been preparing for an offense beginning in 1938. Instead they still thought of a war with Germany in the trench warfare style of WW1.

German Non-Agression pact with Soviet Union Stalin was ready(and had the intention) to invade Germany, they were just faster.

Thats very much a matter for debate on whether the Soviets would have invaded Germany eventually or not. Its not at all clear what Stalins eventual plans were. It is however very certain that the Soviets were completely unprepared for war in Summer 1941.

swiss

10-19-2010, 05:35 PM

How exactly was the war with Japan our fault (I assume you mean the US when you say "our") again? We refused to supply them for their conquest (rape) of China. So thats grounds for a war? And yes the European conflict was relative. Japan would never have dared attack the allies and the US without them also being in a war with Germany. Then again they didn't actually know for sure that attack the US would bring them into war with Germany. It was Hitler that declared war on the US a few days after Pearl Harbor.

What did the US expect Nippon to do after they cut off their oil supply?
Wasn't your business anyway.
Oil is always a good reason to start a war.
What was Gulf War two and three about?

He meant the annexation of the Sudentenland that was allowed under appeasement.

That's because it always was German soil before, therefore I would call it just a reintegration.

IMO, yes they could have had they been preparing for an offense beginning in 1938. Instead they still thought of a war with Germany in the trench warfare style of WW1.

They should have listened to Churchill, huh? :mrgreen:

Thats very much a matter for debate on whether the Soviets would have invaded Germany eventually or not. Its not at all clear what Stalins eventual plans were. It is however very certain that the Soviets were completely unprepared for war in Summer 1941.

It's very clear what Stalin wanted. What happened after WW2?

Splitter

10-19-2010, 05:43 PM

I think a combined French and British offensive early in the war was not really feasible. Let's face it, the French military leadership was somewhere between incompetent and..well...worse than useless. Britain was not on enough of a war footing to wage offensive operations, they just had not prepared themselves for the coming storm adequately. The US would have been no help as we were sitting nice and snug across the vastness of the Atlantic.

The people and leadership of what eventually became known as the "Allies" were divided. A very few wanted war. A segment thought war was inevitable. About half wanted to do anything possible to avoid war including ignoring what Hitler was up to in Europe. To the latter group, the "crimes" Hitler was committing against other countries was not reason enough to shed blood.

The populaces did not unite until war came to their doorsteps.

There is a rumor that Roosevelt saw the need to get involved in the war and allowed Pearl Harbor to happen. This rumor is circumstantially validated by the fortuitous absence of US carriers when the attack occurred. Most of us don't think that is true, but it does show that some leaders (and people) saw the war as inevitable and that it was better to go sooner than later (we were already woefully late). What it took for many nations to get involved was a direct threat to their own country.

Splitter

dduff442

10-19-2010, 08:50 PM

It's somewhat ironic the depths to which the reputation of France as a martial nation plunged after WWII. France had good commanders but the smug politics of the interwar army meant they couldn't rise to prominence.

Giraud, Bilotte, Juin, Weygand and de Lattre de Tassigny were hardly to be taken lightly, and the performance of the different units varied from pityful to outstanding. After the slaughter of WWI, french people ceased to feel their generals cared about them at all. Having allowed this feeling develop and let the army decline from a broad-based institution representing the nation to an organisation dominated by a narrowly-based reactionary clique, a small number of interwar figures must shoulder the blame for what was an inevitable collapse. Gamelin etc. tore the emotional heart from the French military.

Setting aside "cheese-eating" etc. insults for the pathetic slurs they are, it's worth noting that every US officer that went to France in 1917-18 would have spoken excellent French. Jomini was the dominant figure in 19th Century military thought and the West Point curriculum was modeled on that of St Cyr.

The psychotic, utterly amoral French nobility of the ancièn régime only ever had one virtue: their suicidal courage in battle. They were legendary for centuries even if their countrymen didn't feel so enthusiastic about them.

Broad prejudices go in cycles. At a time when martial virtues were taken to signify moral elevation, the Irish Jacobite emigreés of the 18th Century were granted preference as loyal and brave. There were dozens of them: FM Peter Lacy (Russia), his son FM Franz Moritz (Francis Maurice) Lacy (Austria), FM Von Browne (Austria), Prince Nugent (Austria), a huge number of lesser generals, and Ambrosio (Ambrose) O'Higgins. A century later, their descendants were seen as debased, self-indulgent, stupid and untrustworthy, and were as welcome as plague rats and subject to extreme forms of racism.

The ancient German inferiority complex regarding the French prior to 1870 was no more justified than the sense of moral supremacy they felt afterwards.

dduff442

10-19-2010, 08:56 PM

If you've got a few minutes read up about the Japanese advance along the Kokoda Track in New Guinea.

A force of anywhere up to 16000 Japanese was defeated by about 2000 Australians because their comanding officer, Brigadier Potts, decided to disobey his orders (fight to the last man!) and stage a fighting withdrawl along the track. By the time the Japanese had got to within sight of Port Moresby thery were incapable of mounting any offensive action.

Just because someone is running away at the moment doesn't mean that their not waiting behind the next tree ready to put a bullet through you. It's called tactics.

Cheers!

One of the outstanding characteristics of German military tradition in fact was the ability to withdraw without disintegrating. A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other. Good armies retreat when circumstances demand it and attack when the moment if opportune.

d165w3ll

10-19-2010, 09:34 PM

swiss

10-20-2010, 12:41 AM

One of the outstanding characteristics of German military tradition in fact was the ability to withdraw without disintegrating. A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other. Good armies retreat when circumstances demand it and attack when the moment if opportune.

Never heard of it - but Prussian allegiance is legendary, and that means to the last man.
Got any links?

Setting aside "cheese-eating"

Actually it's "frog-eating". :mrgreen:

sidenote:

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9129/frencharmy.jpg

swiss

10-20-2010, 12:47 AM

Schoerner's Army Group Centre in Bohemia was still fighting on despite the surrender - and still killing - until 11th May.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Sch%C3%B6rner
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prague_Offensive

Ok, what's your point? :confused:

We were talking about retreating troops in this thread.

And FYI: That was the newly formed Heeresgruppe-Mitte(25th January 1945), after the original Gruppe A was defeated at the Eastfront.

Never only use Wiki as your only source, that is of course, unless you speak several languages and can cross-check.

Theshark888

10-20-2010, 12:48 AM

WTE_Galway

10-20-2010, 12:51 AM

Actually it's "frog-eating". :mrgreen:

sidenote:

http://img695.imageshack.us/img695/9129/frencharmy.jpg

The Americans were just upset that Saddam started to sell his oil in the late 90's through French interests for Euros rather than US Dollars :D

Truth be known its probably the REAL reason behind the Iraq War ;)

Theshark888

10-20-2010, 12:54 AM

A commander lacking confidence tells his men to hold on to the last man. Retreat, however, is an order like any other.

I don't know...Hitler's orders to hold in the winter of 1941 probably stabilized the front. Sometimes it MAY be better for a non-mechanized army to hold in place.

swiss

10-20-2010, 01:24 AM

I did not want to get bogged down in details but from your reply you force me to. Thanks to lobosrul for giving Swiss some more details about what I meant :)

France could have easily stopped the reoccupation of the Rhineland by advancing to the border or maybe 50 miles into German territory. The French Army was capable of this. At this point in time, the German General staff would have overthrown Hitler and this would have taken care of the Hitler problem. Please notice when the British Expeditionary Force landed in France.

Please research your history of Austria and the relatively new nation of Germany. Better yet, tell an Austrian that he is actually German and see the reaction. There are German speaking areas of Switzerland also...aren't there:)

Funny, you lack fundamental knowledge of European history.
But it's ok, as you are US American...
Austria was always a part of Germany. Again: Do yourself a favor and research holy roman empire of german nation.

Of course, today you shouldn't call an Austrian a German - do you think his perception could be influenced by the outcome of WW2?

Also Mussolini was against this and stopped the Germans from doing this sooner than '38

He did what?

Please research the steps taken to breakup Czechoslovakia.Please research the steps taken to breakup Czechoslovakia and how at any point the Allies could have mobilized and stopped this from happening.

Do it yourself.
I gave you the link.
German speaking territory=Germany
Cz speaking=Cz Republic
That pretty much sums Munich up.

My German ancestors(was born with 2 nationalities) come from the Sudetenland.

I have read all the new information about Stalin invading the Reich but I am not too sure if I believe it. It could have been a feint to keep Hitler in check?! Or Soviet propaganda to explain their terrible showing in 1941 and save Stalin's face!

You read?
Ever read about the German Roadsigns in Kyrillian?
The Udssr had those in stock, they were sure they would need them.
edit: That was in the late 80's, so Stalin and his successors had far bigger plans with Europe after WW2.

After the invasion of Poland the Allies did not take any serious ground action against Germany. The Western border was open to an attack by the French Army. Even a WW1 type Army using WW1 tactics!

One of funny things during the Battle of France is the fact, the French tanks were actually far superior to their German counterparts - but Fritz was so smart to install radios, the French didn't. Instead of radio, they communicated with handsigns and colored flags. They lost.

We cut off the Japanese oil supply because of the invasion of China. Maybe a bit naive but this is how Americans think and still think today. We found ourselves in many situations like this in our history.

But today you get bashed for it. :D

You really need to get your facts straight about the size of the combined Allied Armies in 1939 and the size of Germany's. In 1939 Germany was not in a war footing either...this only started in 1943-44. I personally think that the French would have done a lot better in offense than they did in defence!

Ok, I'll play along.

So the F and UK marches into Germany, right to Berlin in fact, they must relive Hitler from his duty.
(let's ingore the Army in Poland for the moment, as they would have been without leader)

And then?

Theshark888

10-20-2010, 02:27 AM

Funny, you lack fundamental knowledge of European history.
But it's ok, as you are US American...
Austria was always a part of Germany. Again: Do yourself a favor and research holy roman empire of german nation.

I can see from your first answer that you are not that up on European history as you think. Please read some history from the Austrian point of view:) At the very least learn about Italy sending troops to the border when Hitler wanted to annex Austria in '34 and the civil war there. Also, I know you would be surprised that Yugoslav troops were also brought to the border at the same time. They were not ready for war but took very simple decisive action that stopped Hitler in his tracks. Do you really think the French Army in 1939 could not do the same thing?

This conversation was quite interesting Swiss!!! I am a lot less American than you think. European History was one of my fields of study and all of my ancestors come from Austria-Hungary areas. Don't be so hard on American knowledge of history or geography either! I have met many Euros who are just as UNknowledgeable (I don't want to say ignorant)!!!

Our families could have been neighbors at some point:grin:

swiss

10-20-2010, 05:15 AM

If we go back far enough we might even share a mother.

BTT:
I have no idea what you're talking about. Austria always wanted to reunite with Germany - but as state with equal rights rather than being annexed(sp?).
Sure there was some resistance from the KPÖ and some other intellectuals, but that's it.
And what civil war in 34? The Julyputsch?

What's you point?

lobosrul

10-20-2010, 08:12 PM

Swiss, I hope you realize that not everyone in the Sudetenland was ethnically German. Thousands and thousands of people were forced to migrate.

Also, I'm far from an expert at this, but the Holy Roman Empire was not a modern state as such. Its not an equivalent to modern Germany which was unified in 1871, and didn't include Bohemia.

I'm still completely at a loss as to how anyone can fault us for starting the was in the Pacific. We should be forced to trade with a country slaughtering millions in China :confused: Thats stinks of rank irrational hatred of the US. We did not blockade Japan, meaning to prevent others from trading with them.

K_Freddie

10-20-2010, 08:46 PM

I can see from your first answer that you are not that up on European history as you think.

This is funny...
There are many theories of what could have been done during the phoney war and prior to that... the fact remains is that no one, including the USA (if you know your own political history up to 7th Dec 1941) was prepared for any war, except the Germans... they'd been preparing for years. The nazi party had a very effective intimidation network that work well locally, as well as internationally.

Albert Speer did say that if the allies attacked just after the Poland invasion they'd be 'wiped out', but the German bluff was so good that everyone shat themselves. If you do research the WW2 scenario a bit you will find the most effective campaigns were preceded by disinformation and doubt, on both sides.

The real warnings were sounded by the spy networks on both sides, but these were mostly ignored until too late.

:grin:

dduff442

10-20-2010, 09:08 PM

I don't know...Hitler's orders to hold in the winter of 1941 probably stabilized the front. Sometimes it MAY be better for a non-mechanized army to hold in place.

I understand this is sometimes correct and that opinion is divided about Moscow '41. The broader context needs be taken into account as well, however.

Hitler was given repeated warnings by his Marshals that, in spite of the fact that they were still moving forward, thing's had already changed from dangerous to critical in the weeks before the launch of the Soviet counter-offensive. It was Hitler's idea to keep pressing on to the point where the German forces were obviously over-exposed and logistics had broken down.

As with Napoleon Hitler had plenty of supplies, including winter clothing -- hundreds of miles away in Poland.

1941 was the year when Hitler's megalomania reached full bloom. In March '42, Goebbels recorded in his diary Hitler's remark that if it wasn't for his "iron will" the front could easily have fallen apart -- not only was their no contrition for his contribution to the disaster, one from which the German army would never fully recover, the Grofaz who had never once visited the front accorded his own determination primary credit for stabilising matters from the comfort of his Berlin chancellry almost a thousand miles away.

For the '42 campaign, army groups Center and North were enfeebled. Their infantry divisions were well below strength and stripped of motor transport and many new recruits inadequately trained. Their tank and motorised divisions had been 'de-motorised', i.e. their support and logistical arms had their motor transport taken away so that they no longer possessed operational mobility. Only AG South had been restored near to full strength.

I'm insufficiently familiar with matters to assess the correctness of the "stand or die" order. It can't be viewed in isolation, however. The gross errors by the General Staff and by Hitler that lead to it must be taken into account.

dduff

Theshark888

10-21-2010, 12:25 AM

Austria always wanted to reunite with Germany

I would say the complete opposite...that Austria never wanted to unite with Germany; this was a Pan-Germanic attitude of German origin.

Theshark888

10-21-2010, 12:43 AM

...except the Germans... they'd been preparing for years.
:grin:

Germany was about as unprepeared for World War 2 as any other country. Look at their levels of oil, steel, coal and armanents production. The General Staff had plans for war in the 1940's but Hitler took many gambles and the timetable was moved up!!

I don't want to get in a tit for tat argument here!!! My point is that France, backed up by GB, Italy and other "Allied" countries could have stopped Hitler very easily if some decisive action was taken in the early 30's....this was my whole comment that a few hundred lives lost in the early thirties could have averted the European World War with Germany. Now the Soviet Union is another thing!

Sure I know about deception, doubt and disinformation! Sometimes this can backfire...can you imagine Saddam Husseins reaction when he learned that the Allies were mobilizing to come to the aid of Kuwait! Priceless:-)

swiss

10-21-2010, 01:08 AM

I would say the complete opposite...that Austria never wanted to unite with Germany; this was a Pan-Germanic attitude of German origin.

Doesn't change the fact your wrong, Austria just had a different idea of the conditions of the integration.
The Austrian were convinced they are too small too survive on their own.

You could try to google translate the German version of the wiki article, which is excellent.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anschluss_%C3%96sterreichs#cite_note-linzer-programm-4

swiss

10-21-2010, 01:15 AM

Germany was about as unprepeared for World War 2 as any other country. Look at their levels of oil, steel, coal and armanents production. The General Staff had plans for war in the 1940's but Hitler took many gambles and the timetable was moved up!!

What?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1801938

Next thing you tell me is the US actually won the Vietnam War?

can you imagine Saddam Husseins reaction when he learned that the Allies were mobilizing to come to the aid of Kuwait!

Of course it was only about the sooo loved Kuwaitis. ;)

Thats stinks of rank irrational hatred of the US.

No, actually not. This hate is reserved to treehugers and other do-gooders. In fact I had a discussion about this with Splitter.
But I don't have too many infos on the pacific war, I guess I'll do some research during the next few days.

Splitter

10-21-2010, 01:21 AM

What?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1801938

Next thing you tell me is the US actually won the Vietnam War?

Well we DID win every major military engagement :). But our heart wasn't in it. We weren't willing to do what it would take to actually win politically....too many civilian deaths would be involved. The North Vietnamese knew this and exploited it very well...just put those AA installations next to a school.

We used to give out t-shirts to our baseball players when I coached. They said "Go Hard or Go Home". Too bad politicians don't always understand such a simple concept.

Damned hippies.... :)

Splitter

swiss

10-21-2010, 01:24 AM

The North Vietnamese knew this and exploited it very well...just put those AA installations next to a school.
Splitter

Bro, you can't defeat your enemy without soldiers on his ground - it really doesn't matter where they put their AA(oder even SA).

Splitter

10-21-2010, 01:48 AM

Bros, you can't defeat your enemy without soldiers on his ground - it really doesn't matter where they put their AA(oder even SA).

When we bombed the snot out of 'em, they returned to the negotiating table. When we stopped because of political reasons, the negotiations fell apart.

You are right, you need boots on the ground to take and keep territory. But air power can make their job a LOT easier. But (another but), that's not why we lost.

We fought a limited war. When the bombing was increased against the north, protesters at home went nuts so we stopped bombing. Ho understood this from the start. He knew the war would be won on the streets of America, not the jungles of Vietnam. He knew we did not have the stomach, would not make the sacrifices, necessary to win the war. We would not sacrifice enough of our boys but more importantly, we would not be willing to do to North Vietnam what was needed to win.

He drew up the blue print for how to beat the US. NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily. You beat us by turning our morality against us. You beat us by dividing our people (pictures of dead women and children do the trick). You beat us by being willing to sacrifice more than we are willing to sacrifice. You beat us by exploiting your civilian casualties.

Saddam miscalculated (he wasn't that tough a nut to crack). Our present opponents relearned the lesson of Minh and are gambling that we will not be willing to do what is needed to win (they may be right too). All they have to do is outlast us, not beat us. Just like Minh.

We are leaving Iraq in July of 2011. The president said so. All the bad guys need to do is survive that long and move in to take over. That lesson was not lost on Pakistan who is negotiating with the terrorists (our enemy) in preparation for our future withdrawal from Afghanistan.

We just don't have the staying power. Then or now.

Splitter

WTE_Galway

10-21-2010, 02:13 AM

Theshark888

10-21-2010, 02:14 AM

What?
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1801938 Do not use 60 year old articles to prove your point. There is much good information about German production and plans for expansion and how the General staff was much afraid of Hitler.

Next thing you tell me is the US actually won the Vietnam War? Tecnically the South lost the War.

Of course it was only about the sooo loved Kuwaitis. ;) We did fly our flag on their tankers during the Iran-Iraq (oh, sorry 1st Gulf War) but you were not even born then:-) See the history of the USS Samuel B. Roberts, for an interesting read!

No, actually not. This hate is reserved to treehugers and other do-gooders. In fact I had a discussion about this with Splitter.
But I don't have too many infos on the pacific war, I guess I'll do some research during the next few days. Japan did some brutal business in Asia and received some brutal payback.

Theshark888

10-21-2010, 02:24 AM

Theshark888

10-21-2010, 02:32 AM

You beat us by exploiting your civilian casualties.

It is very ironic that as the enemy endures more casualties, Americans tend to get ready to leave the battle!? Might be a good thing...I don't know.

Splitter

10-21-2010, 03:05 AM

Rolling Thunder was a dismal failure.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/readings/drew2.htm

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/33662/andrew-j-pierre/rolling-thunder-understanding-policy-and-program-failure

https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/kent-csi/vol13no4/html/v13i4a01p_0001.htm

Dig deeper, you are only looking far enough to prove your thought.

Rolling Thunder was a failure approved by a moral and physical coward: Lyndon Johnson. Johnson was a bully by all accounts....bullies are usually cowards and he typified the term.

Linebacker was a success. Nixon knew we could win (for all his faults). But we stopped due to internal political pressure concerning the bombing of North Vietnam. North Vietnam agreed to talk, we stopped bombing. Linebacker II got the peace talks started again...North Vietnam agreed to talk again based on the previous talks and we stopped bombing. But political bungling ended the talks and there was a HUGE backlash directed at Nixon from the American left who believed that the U.S. had "carpet-bombed hospitals, schools, and residential areas, committing barbarous crimes against our people".

That propaganda was put out by the North Vietnamese government and soaked up by the left in the US. Bombing worked but some civilians died and we as a nation were not willing to accept the collateral damage.

No matter that the enemy put schools, hospitals, and religious institutions right next to ammo dumps, fuel depots, anti aircraft positions, and communications centers , right? :) Minh understood our limitations then. Terrorists understand it now.

Militarily, we could not be beaten then or now. Reagan said, "We could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and still be home by Christmas.". He was right, we could have. That's just not our way no matter what the propagandists say.

Bottom line lessons: Don't go to war piecemeal. Don't go to war thinking it is all going to be nice and clean. Don't go to war unless you are willing to accept collateral damage. Don't go to war unless you mean to win. Don't let a war drag on. If you go to war have an objective, conditions of victory, and an exit strategy. If you go to war, end it quick and save lives on all sides.

Kennedy got us into the war by committing "advisors". Johnson threw men and resources into the war bit by bit without a plan to win until it became a huge behemoth. Nixon had the strategy and the means to win the war but let politics on the home front get in the way. I think that all qualifies as a major Charlie Foxtrot of a war in terms of execution. (Bless those that served though, they did their part and the loss was not their fault)

Splitter

swiss

10-21-2010, 03:07 AM

[COLOR="red"]Jbut you were not even born then

1976, I'd say I was already very alive.
Check your sources. ;)

We did fly our flag on their tankers during the Iran-Iraq (oh, sorry 1st Gulf War)

And supported Iran, interesting to see where that led to.

Tecnically the South lost the War.

The "South", right.
Morally, the US won.
(lol)
Reminds me of the Ariane space program.
If the mission is a success; it's a French rocket.
If they have to blow it up, its European. ;)

...You beat us .... You beat us....
Splitter

Whom you're talking to?
Can't be me.
See any Vietcong?

What about the Ho Chi Minh trail?
Was on the sout side too, no?
Anyway, I agree with you on almost all the points you mentioned.

Splitter

10-21-2010, 03:30 AM

And supported Iran, interesting to see where that led to.

Reagan could be a mean bastige :). OK, "pragmatic" is a better word (best president in my life time).

BTW, I think we actually supported Iraq if I recall correctly. Saddam to be specific. We were still rather miffed with Iran for holding our people hostage for 444 days (umm, by the way, Iran released our hostages on the day Reagan took office for some strange reason....maybe promised annihilation? lol).

Reagan knew that as long as they were fighting each other they would not be fighting the west. I know, it sounds Machiavellian but it certainly worked for a decade or so. They were bound to fight anyway and neither side could be allowed to win, especially the fanatical regime in Iran led by the Ayatollah.

This policy was criticized later because Saddam became so powerful but....let's face it, his armed forces were really a paper tiger even in '91. The Iran-Iraq war had drained his military and he had not fully recovered.

Understand also that Iran had nuclear dreams even before the war with Iraq just as they do now. Israel took care of it the first time around. Reagan understood that Iran could not be permitted a victory against Iraq.

You simply have to love a leader whom the bad guys perceive to be just crazy enough to "do it". That was Reagan. He bluffed his way into winning the cold war (SDI my fat....). He bluffed the Iranians into turning loose the hostages (though he would probably have crushed them if they had held onto the hostages). He kept two dangerous enemies fighting each other rather than turning loose on the rest of the world. He backed up his threats, called saber rattling then, just enough (Libya) to give enemies pause. The man was a simple genius who understood people.

Splitter

swiss

10-21-2010, 03:33 AM

No matter that the enemy put schools, hospitals, and religious institutions right next to ammo dumps, fuel depots, anti aircraft positions, and communications centers , right? :) Minh understood our limitations then. Terrorists understand it now.

It's quite refreshing to see the US government still doesn't.

Afghanistan is another success story...
How tf did they think they win? If you're not fighting an army it's going to be though to win - they hide all over the planet.

Btw, do you know "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"? No the movie, the poem by Goethe?

swiss

10-21-2010, 03:36 AM

Reagan could be a mean bastige :). OK, "pragmatic" is a better word (best president in my life time).

Guess so. Or maybe he just picked the right time to be in office.

BTW, I think we actually supported Iraq if I recall correctly.

Nope, Iran. They still have some fubar F14.
http://www.pauliddon.net/img/iranian%20f14%20crew.jpg

But the Shah was in power that time. ;)

Splitter

10-21-2010, 03:54 AM

Not "you", Swiss. "You" meaning anyone who rattles the big dog's cage :). I was using the "royal you" just as I use the "royal we"...after all, I do not speak for all Americans (insert a "thank goodness" here lol).

The Ho Chi Minh Trail was a major supply artery, no doubt. The thing is, the supplies had to GET to the trail before they could be delivered on the backs of civilians, water buffalo, bicycles, and trucks. The air interdictions into the North hit railways, roads, and bridges and prevented about half the supplies from ever reaching the North Vietnamese army in the south.

Make no mistake, the problem for the North was getting supplies to their forces in the South. Civilian casualties to them were just unfortunate byproducts of war. Sometimes, civilian casualties were a boon to their cause due to the "bad publicity" it caused in the US.

I am not sure people outside the US understand just how divided the US was at the time (I can only imagine because I was an infant myself lol). The hippy, free love, peace movement was in full swing. The war had been going on for many years and people were weary of it. Families divided over opinions on the war.

The North played on this division in the US. They fed the American left the anti-war meat it craved. Protests were rampant and people were frothing at the mouth.

This was Johnson's problem. He was a leftist and was handed a little war which he did not want to fight. However, he could not get out of it either. So he chose the middle ground, neither fighting to win nor willing to pull out. He had great dreams (in his mind) for his presidency but the war always got in the way.

Nixon came in with the plan and will to win but he found himself handcuffed by the left as to what he could do to win. He was a politician above all and never took his eye off of re-election. It ended up that he didn't have the stomach to win either as a result. Then the country got distracted with a bungled burglary job committed by Nixon's people and they just wanted to GTFO of Vietnam.

Very sad. 50K Americans died over there and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. All because we didn't have the stomach to do what was needed to win. As a nation, we never fully committed which is usually a recipe for disaster.

Splitter

Splitter

10-21-2010, 04:19 AM

It's quite refreshing to see the US government still doesn't.

Afghanistan is another success story...
How tf did they think they win? If you're not fighting an army it's going to be though to win - they hide all over the planet.

Btw, do you know "The Sorcerer's Apprentice"? No the movie, the poem by Goethe?

The Shah went out of power somewhere around 1978 if I remember correctly. I think the US started backing him in the 50's because they saw him as a secular leader as opposed to a religious extremist. Good thought...really bad dude though lol. What dictator is not?

By the time the Iran-Iraq war kicked up, it was the Ayatollah vs. Saddam though and we backed Iraq. Reagan (or Carter for that matter) actually COULD have bombed Iran and gotten away with it domestically....the people were that angry. And I am not talking about taking out a few buildings, I am talking about wave upon wave of B-52's carpet bombing Tehran. A popular song at the time was "Bomb Iran" to the tune of the Beach Boy's "Barbara Anne" lol.

There is a way to win in Afghanistan, just not the one we are pursuing. "Eliminating" the poppy crops and sealing off the country would work as far as eliminating it as a resource for the terrorists. The key in Afghanistan is that the people are not willing to fight for their freedom. It's a cultural thing in that they change sides on a whim.

Of course, if we cut the country off the people would suffer. So we won't. We won't throw enough troops in to seal off the borders either because that would further erode the US President's support amongst his own party. Like Johnson, Obama is fighting the war from the middle. He can't cut and run because it would ruin him in the eyes of the people and he can't fight to win because it would ruin him within his party. Earlier this year the military requested 70K additional troops, they got 40K I think. So there ya go.

Our bombs are better now :). But some still miss. Worse yet, sometimes the intel used to choose targets is faulty. Civilians still die, just not in anywhere near the numbers they have in the past. Now, though, cameras are everywhere. One death gets publicity. People hate seeing dead civilians on the evening news (ok, on Youtube because no one watches the news anymore lol). We are even less tolerant of collateral damage (dead civilians) than we have been in the past.

I only remember the Sorcerer's Apprentice from school and I probably just skimmed it then :). I just remember the moral being something like "don't bite off more than you can chew"...but hey, I was probably more worried about cheerleaders than literature so I could have gotten it all wrong :). If I am remembering it correctly it does pertain to world politics and war. Don't mess around when you don't know what you are doing and be careful that your "fixes" don't cause even more damage. Close?

Splitter

WTE_Galway

10-21-2010, 05:23 AM

Very sad. 50K Americans died over there and who knows how many hundreds of thousands of Vietnamese. All because we didn't have the stomach to do what was needed to win. As a nation, we never fully committed which is usually a recipe for disaster.

Splitter

Generally agreed figures are about 800K NVA, about 250K VC another 250k or so ARVN (South Vietnamese Army) and all up anywhere between 2 and 3 million civilians.

Despite a massive kill ratio in their favor all the US could achieve is a stalemate where the North finally agreed to "peace talks" allowing the US save face and abandon South Vietnam without being totally embarrassed. It was well understood at that the time that after an appropriate period of a year or two the North would occupy the South. hence the panic to get US associates, employees and collaborators out of the country at the time.

As far as the 60's protesters go their main point seem to be that encouraging people on the other side of the planet to embrace "freedom democracy and western values" by bombing hell out of them didn't seem to be particularly working that well.

K_Freddie

10-21-2010, 07:06 AM

Germany was about as unprepeared for World War 2 as any other country.
You must be living in a parallel world with an alternate history.. this must be interesting. ;)

K_Freddie

10-21-2010, 07:19 AM

This whole middle east story, is about more than the drugs and oil, as the west (USA, UK, etc.) have supported both sides at one time or another.
The side they supported was the 'puppet in their interest', but as shown many times in the past that if you cannot win the minds and souls, you cannot win
The souls are not winnable, as the opposing groups are fundentally different in religion and culture.

The trick is to just leave the cultures alone and let them destroy (or develop) themselves. Even when they're divided don't think that it's a good time to attack as this idea has backfired in a big way, many times throughout history.
:)

FPSOlkor

10-21-2010, 01:11 PM

It is very ironic that as the enemy endures more casualties, Americans tend to get ready to leave the battle!? Might be a good thing...I don't know.

Yeah... There is no way US can make it through US-Chinese war... Or US-India war then...

BTW, sisnce we came to V War - I'm preparing an interview with Soviet aviation advisor in NV... Might be interesting to take a look from another side...

robtek

10-21-2010, 01:20 PM

Well, it wasn't a problem in ww2 where US civilian and military casualities were much less then axis casualities.

BadAim

10-21-2010, 01:32 PM

Wow, I think I can honestly say that I've never seen so convoluted a thread before. Well, maybe a few over at the Zoo. I think I'll pass on this one, I already have a headache after a quick skim, good luck guys.

ATAG_Dutch

10-21-2010, 01:35 PM

Resumption of the draft in Germany breaking the 100K army limit - reason for sanctions, not invasion
Reoccupying the Rhineland - Germany Welcomed
Ansclhuss with Austria - Austria voted in favour
Breakup of Czechoslovakia - See below
German Non-Agression pact with Soviet Union - no reason to invade anyone
Invasion of Poland - this is when we declared war!

I've missed all this for a few days, so thanks to Swiss et al for taking it up.
Good points well made.

I wonder why it is that threads like this one always seem to end up discussing America's global exploits?

Just to reply to 'theshark888' though, (even though it hardly seems relevant now!);

20/20 hindsight and a modern perspective is all well and good, but;

It was widely felt by the mid 30's that the restrictions of Versailles were too restrictive for what was and is a major economic european power.
Consequently when Germany exceeded the 100k limit, was virtually welcomed into the Rhineland, Austria and the Sudetenland, diplomatic agreements were the order of the day. The remainder of Czechoslovakia was, in my view 'sacrificed' to give Britain time.

Britain needed time because in 37/38, the British military was in no fit state to take on the Werhmacht in a land war, and France simply wished to stay safe behind the Maginot Line, fearing a return to the conditions of 1914-18. No-one expected Germany to simply go around this line through Neutral States.

Even when we were given time, the combined forces of France and the British Expeditionary Force were unable to hold back the Blitzkrieg tactics of Guderian and co.
This is why it surprised me that it was thought that an earlier intervention would have cost only 'a few hundred lives'.
It's highly possible that an earlier, more overt intervention (although I can't envisage what form this would have taken) would have seen a return to the attrition of 14-18, albeit more mechanised.
Britain and France could easily have lost, as they did in France in 1940, leaving them in a worse state than post Dunkirk, and either way, Hitler would still have gone for the Soviet Union.
It's clear in 'Mein Kampf' that this, together with the destruction of 'World Jewry', was his main goal in life.

What seems to be forgotten is that from June 1944, after three years of terrible attrition in the east, and the combined forces of the British Commonwealth and the US in the West, it still took almost a further year to defeat Germany.
An earlier intervention could easily have led to a much greater catastrophe, as destruction of the British armed forces on land in Europe would probably have led to Britain under Chamberlain negotiating terms with Hitler. The US would have then been unable to launch a second front from Britain.
Hitler would only then need to concentrate on Russia, and may have won. Then he could have gone on to assist his Japanese allies in the east, but only after eliminating the 'untermensch Slavs' as well as the Jewish population.

Of course this is all conjecture......

As far as the Russian pilot goes, I take the view that if any of us had witnessed the destruction of our country's men and women over three years of total war as Russians did, we wouldn't hesitate to do the same.
It's Human Nature, which isn't as nice on a fundamental level as some people would like to believe.;)

Theshark888

10-22-2010, 01:00 AM

You must be living in a parallel world with an alternate history.. this must be interesting. ;)

If you researched this topic you would be very surprised how unready Germany was for war and how close the German General Staff came to overthrowing Hitler before the invasion of Poland.

I would also probably shock you since I believe the Maginot Line actually served it's purpose and forced the Germans to attack around it!

I know that this is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Euros, but Hitler could have been easily defeated by some Allied action in the 1930's; that was my only point! My "alternate" universe may have made the world a more dangerous place, with no Hitler buffer against the Soviet Union or some other unintended consequences:)

Viking

10-22-2010, 02:49 AM

Yeah... There is no way US can make it through US-Chinese war... Or US-India war then...

BTW, sisnce we came to V War - I'm preparing an interview with Soviet aviation advisor in NV... Might be interesting to take a look from another side...

Thank you for your thread!
And looking forward to the next, please keep producing and posting.

Regards

Viking

swiss

10-22-2010, 03:34 AM

I would also probably shock you since I believe the Maginot Line actually served it's purpose and forced the Germans to attack around it!

So if a burglar robs you by coming through the wide open window in the backyard, your burglarproof steel front-door served it's purpose as well?

Optimistic point of view. :grin:

WTE_Galway

10-22-2010, 05:03 AM

Even when we were given time, the combined forces of France and the British Expeditionary Force were unable to hold back the Blitzkrieg tactics of Guderian and co.

Actually the combined forces of France, Belgium, Holland and the British Expeditionary Force held out only a week or two more than Poland all alone had managed. The Poles inflicted proportionally more casualties for their size as well, with around 10,000 Germans killed in Poland versus 30-40,000 killed in France against much greater odds. In addition the Poles manage to destroy or temporarily take out of action 25% of the Luftwaffe. The Poles did far far better than later propaganda about "cavalry and biplanes against armor" would suggest.

More significantly, at the time of first invading Poland, Heinz Guderian and co were all (surprise surprise) over in Poland. Hitler took a huge risk against the advice of his own military and left the western border with France undefended during the Polish campaign. This was a massive gamble hoping that the French and British would hold back on attacking until they felt more prepared. The gamble paid off.

In other words an attack by the French/British at the time Germany was tied up in Poland may well have succeeded.

K_Freddie

10-22-2010, 12:08 PM

BTW, sisnce we came to V War - I'm preparing an interview with Soviet aviation advisor in NV... Might be interesting to take a look from another side...
This will be a great read.. cannot wait..:grin:

K_Freddie

10-22-2010, 12:10 PM

with no Hitler buffer against the Soviet Union or some other unintended consequences:)
Interesting.. would you have any idea who's going to buffer the rest of the world from the current aggressor :rolleyes:

=XIII=Shea

10-22-2010, 12:22 PM

Cheers for the read m8:)

ATAG_Dutch

10-22-2010, 06:09 PM

More significantly, at the time of first invading Poland, Heinz Guderian and co were all (surprise surprise) over in Poland. Hitler took a huge risk against the advice of his own military and left the western border with France undefended during the Polish campaign. This was a massive gamble hoping that the French and British would hold back on attacking until they felt more prepared. The gamble paid off.

In other words an attack by the French/British at the time Germany was tied up in Poland may well have succeeded.

Agree with most of your post, although Britain and France would not have gone against the wishes of Belgium and Holland in order to go around the 'Siegfried line', which although in the process of being built from 37-39 and into 1940, even with the commitment of forces elsewhere would still have been left reasonably manned.
This is why I said I 'can't envisage what form this would take' in the previous post, as the only other option available would be to plan a seaborne invasion of either northern Germany or Poland itself for which neither Britain nor France were equipped. The fleet would have been harried every step of the way, outside of the range of effective fighter cover
Attempting to go through the Siegfried Line, could easily have resulted in 14-18 conditions for a short time. Then once the main German Forces returned from Poland......

Theshark888

10-22-2010, 09:24 PM

Agree with most of your post, although Britain and France would not have gone against the wishes of Belgium and Holland in order to go around the 'Siegfried line', which although in the process of being built from 37-39 and into 1940, even with the commitment of forces elsewhere would still have been left reasonably manned.
This is why I said I 'can't envisage what form this would take' in the previous post, as the only other option available would be to plan a seaborne invasion of either northern Germany or Poland itself for which neither Britain nor France were equipped. The fleet would have been harried every step of the way, outside of the range of effective fighter cover
Attempting to go through the Siegfried Line, could easily have resulted in 14-18 conditions for a short time. Then once the main German Forces returned from Poland......

I believe that Hitler would have been overthrown at some point. There was no need for the Allies to advance all the way to Berlin...once the Rhine was encircled, Germany would have collapsed. The Siegfried Line was not all that it was cracked up to be.

Theshark888

10-22-2010, 09:28 PM

Interesting.. would you have any idea who's going to buffer the rest of the world from the current aggressor :rolleyes:

Well, maybe China or a resurgent Russia could protect you from us ( you are talking about US right?!):grin:

Triggaaar

10-22-2010, 11:22 PM

NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily. You beat us by turning our morality against us.What do you think beating someone militarily is? Do you think it requires incapacitating every single soldier? The will of the people becomes particularly important when nuclear weapns are an option.

You beat us by dividing our people (pictures of dead women and children do the trick). You beat us by being willing to sacrifice more than we are willing to sacrifice. You beat us by exploiting your civilian casualties.You're looking at wars against much smaller nations, incapable of attacking US soil. Hoefully we'll never find out how invincible the US military may or may not be.

Triggaaar

10-22-2010, 11:59 PM

I'm impressed that the disagreement here has been kept constructive (despite the odd patronising remark), it's quite an interesting read.I would also probably shock you since I believe the Maginot Line actually served it's purpose and forced the Germans to attack around it!When the Maginot Line was designed, the intention was to prevent invasion - not to inconvenience the Germans by making them go around it. It completely failed its purpose.

I know that this is a tough pill to swallow for a lot of Euros, but Hitler could have been easily defeated by some Allied action in the 1930'sWhich Europeans are you thinking of? The French, Italians and British? The Brits wouldn't feel bad for not declaring war in the 30's.

Xilon_x

10-23-2010, 10:14 AM

Theshark888

10-23-2010, 03:31 PM

I'm impressed that the disagreement here has been kept constructive (despite the odd patronising remark), it's quite an interesting read.When the Maginot Line was designed, the intention was to prevent invasion - not to inconvenience the Germans by making them go around it. It completely failed its purpose.

Which Europeans are you thinking of? The French, Italians and British? The Brits wouldn't feel bad for not declaring war in the 30's.

I am not that well learned about the Maginot Line, but all the information I have states that the intention was to give France time to mobilise and force a German attack through neutral countries; which would trigger a British/positive World reaction. By forcing the attack through the Lowlands France got the armies of Holland and Belgium and was able to concentrate forces. I know that Belgium and Holland were not too happy about it and this may have caused the rift lasting until 1940. I don't think that France was so naive to think that it could just stop German plans from invasion with the Maginot Line...why create DCR's and DLM's if there was no need for limited offensive action?

My Euro comment was just how I find it shocking that so many people today (Europeans) seem to believe that Germany was invincible and fully prepared for war in 1939....and there was nothing that the Allies could do to stop Hitler.

Theshark888

10-23-2010, 03:36 PM

during france progect the maginot line in Italy Mussolini project the Littoria line to italy alps for German attak to italy.
sorry wikipedia have only italian and german lenguagge for this document.

http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vallo_Alpino_in_Alto_Adige

immagine if German during WW2 attak Italy from alps For German is very difficoult acces in italy.
Mussolini thought and imagined that France would resist the German attack but France has sold so Germany had annexed Austria and also threatened Italy.

I'm sure Mussolini was worried about German speaking parts of Italy!

Italy would have done much better as an Ally than a Axis in my opinion (not just because the Axis lost the war- LOL). I have read about some Italians wanting to get "involved" to protect Catholic Poland but am not sure to what extent that was really happening on the Italian "street."

Splitter

10-23-2010, 04:02 PM

What do you think beating someone militarily is? Do you think it requires incapacitating every single soldier? The will of the people becomes particularly important when nuclear weapns are an option.

You're looking at wars against much smaller nations, incapable of attacking US soil. Hoefully we'll never find out how invincible the US military may or may not be.

It's not the large militaries that give us trouble. Assuming the US fights some sort of defensive battle (like an invasion of South Korea by NK backed by China):

Russia is the only other nation, currently, who could pose a legitimate "end of the country" nuclear threat. Strategic nukes are a different animal so let's take that off the table for discussion. A strategic nuclear exchange could not be won because of massive retaliation.

The two largest militaries in the world, other than the US, are China and North Korea (to the best of my knowledge). If either, or somehow both, decided to test the US militarily they would lose because wherever they massed their troops, those troops would die en-mass.

Stealth weapons (planes) and cruise missiles would take out command and control. Those and the bombers would take out transportation bottlenecks trapping the armor. Then the "dumb" weapons would do the butchery.

Nah, what the US has trouble with is smaller, insurgent type adversaries. We have to "go get" those forces which takes boots on the ground where fighting gets bloody for the attacker. The opposing forces also tend to mingle with the civilian population which further ties the hands of the attacker (the US DOES seek to avoid civilian casualties no matter what silly prejudices are present in the world). These opponents hide among civilians and then pop out to attack US forces...that's a hard nut to crack because superior weaponry is a much smaller factor in victory.

Military attacks on US soil are just impossible at the moment and for any foreseeable future. I know it's the dream of some for the US to get its' "come upin's", but no combined military alliance in the world could take and hold any US territory. First, the military, including the National Guard would fight desperately. Maybe more importantly, our civilians are armed to a great extent with around 40% of households having firearms.

Civilians rarely pose a direct threat to military forces, but present a huge thorn in the side of occupying military forces (see the Liberator pistols dropped into France in WWII). Theoretically, we could arm every adult civilian with privately owned firearms. A rifle behind every blade of grass. We are safe from occupation :).

Interestingly, Britain found itself with a disarmed population as WWII broke out and sought to quickly remedy the situation (Lend Lease and private firearms from the US).

Speaking pragmatically, you don't take on a force like the US military directly. You chip away at its' foundation which is the American populace's whimsical opinion. With the right nudge here and there, we do a great job of tearing ourselves apart all by ourselves :). Parade any civilian deaths before American cameras, make us feel guilty. Claim we targeted schools and hospitals. Put your forces among the population, use them as shields.

Wait us out. Our public has a short attention span. We don't like the thought of your civilians dying. Many of us feel guilty about having the power to defeat any other nation. Our left will join you in your criticisms in short order. We will start fighting your battle in our media. Ask Minh.

One thing that should never be done by an opponent is to commit and act that unites the population. In the short term, that's when we become dangerous to an opponent. But again, just wait.

Splitter

Triggaaar

10-23-2010, 05:04 PM

It's not the large militaries that give us trouble. Assuming the US fights some sort of defensive battle (like an invasion of South Korea by NK backed by China):The large militaries do not give the US trouble, because (thankfully) you're not at war with them.

Russia is the only other nation, currently, who could pose a legitimate "end of the country" nuclear threat.Why do you think that other nuclear countries could not pose a threat to you? Any country with nuclear weapons, that the US was aggressive towards, would pose a threat to the US.

The two largest militaries in the world, other than the US, are China and North Korea (to the best of my knowledge). If either, or somehow both, decided to test the US militarily they would lose because wherever they massed their troops, those troops would die en-mass.It depends what form the war would take. Your statement was that "no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily". That doesn't narrow down what type of war it was. For example, if the US wanted to invade China, as the US invaded Iraq (say for example the US objected to China claiming Taiwan as its own), and Russia decided to fight with China, you think that you could not be beaten militarily? If you were dropping bombs on China, as you (and my country) did on Iraq, you'd find bombs were landing on US soil too, and that may not go down to well. You might find pressure to withdraw your troops from China. Now the fact is, that if China invaded Taiwan, the US would not invade China, because the US knows it is not invincible.

Military attacks on US soil are just impossible at the moment and for any foreseeable future. I know it's the dream of some for the US to get its' "come upin's", but no combined military alliance in the world could take and hold any US territory.Well let's ignore those who'd actually like a war of any sort anywhere for a second, and stick to the point. Firstly, an enemy doesn't need to want to hold US territory in order for it to be a target. And if the US invaded Russia or China, attacks on US soil are a given, not an impossibility.

Sven

10-23-2010, 05:31 PM

interesting how a reconnaissance pilot triggered a WW3 scenario.

I really like reading about personal war experiences, it gives a good image how life was at the front and the actual aerial combat. Too bad all that info will slowly disappear as less people care about WW2 and the stories will no longer be told by the ones who were there.

Sven

Splitter

10-23-2010, 06:29 PM

Well let's ignore those who'd actually like a war of any sort anywhere for a second, and stick to the point. Firstly, an enemy doesn't need to want to hold US territory in order for it to be a target. And if the US invaded Russia or China, attacks on US soil are a given, not an impossibility.

I couched my comments with the caveat of the US fighting a "defensive" war. Driving out aggressors is always easier than taking and holding territory. Just ask the Germans and Russians of WWII :).

As you said, it's not like the US has cause to invade China, Russia, or even North Korea. In the case of China and NK, the much more likely scenario would be countering an invasion of one of their neighbors. It is not even a given that the US would bomb targets in either of those countries.

Attacks on US soil would have to be either clandestine or with ICBM's (or subs). I don't see how any other country even contemplate occupying US soil....if we had too much trouble driving them out we could always (and would) nuke them into oblivion. Even getting enough troops across intervening oceans would be impossible. Such an invasion is just not a winning scenario for an adversary.

China could do damage with their ICBMs, but they would cease to exist in return and I don't think they are crazy (plus they are outgunned on the nuclear front for the time being). Little Kim in NK doesn't have the delivery means to do much damage even though he is crazy enough to do it.

The larger threat to the West is WMD's showing up in an urban area. Cargo containers at a dock, sneaked over the border (Mexico/US) in a backpack or tractor trailer, or on board an airliner and airburst. These kinds of threats usually do not come form other nations but rather factions secretly supported by nations.

War has changed in the years since WWII. People generally wore uniforms then and fought battles. Small nations were prey to large nations in many instances who were looking for colonies. Wars were usually wars of conquest. Civilian casualties were accepted on all sides. Men like the Russian fighter pilot that started this wayward thread were fighting for the very survival of their nation, not a fanatical idea.

Yes, he strafed retreating enemy troops, but they were soldiers just like him. As we become more civilized perhaps we become less civilized?

Splitter

Triggaaar

10-23-2010, 07:01 PM

I couched my comments with the caveat of the US fighting a "defensive" war.You didn't make that caveat when you made the statement that "NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily", and that is what I was disagreeing with.

As you said, it's not like the US has cause to invade China, Russia, or even North Korea. In the case of China and NK, the much more likely scenario would be countering an invasion of one of their neighbors. It is not even a given that the US would bomb targets in either of those countries.

I don't see how any other country even contemplate occupying US soil....if we had too much trouble driving them out we could always (and would) nuke them into oblivion.Who is talking about occupying US soil? You said that no two country alliance could beat the US militarily, and I'm simply saying that if the US provoked Russia or China (eg, attacked their homeland), they could also attack US soil. I'm not suggesting for a minute they'd want to occupy. You can't assume that if such a terrible set of circumstances ever (which is a mighty long time) did occur, the US would simply nuke the enemy into oblivion, because the enemy could do the same to the US.

Many in the US likes to think that it is kindly policing the world, but we all know it's not as simple as that. If Iraq did not have oil, the gulf wars wouldn't have happened. There are other countries where atrocities occur, and war is not waged, either because there is not the finacial incentive, or because the US doesn't have the military capability.

Splitter

10-23-2010, 09:24 PM

....or is it because US interests are not threatened?

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose. The good news is that nuclear weapons possessed by the the major powers actually keep them from trying to invade one another.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism. So.....tell me why we should care about world opinion? Because, let's face again, someone is always going to criticize the US to further their own agenda. There are many who think the US military should just be a puppet of the UN.

Always there when they need us :).

Theshark888

10-23-2010, 09:27 PM

If Iraq did not have oil, the gulf wars wouldn't have happened.

Of course. Should we have just let our Western-way of civilization collapse or held hostage by some third world despot gaining control of over half the oil reserves in the world?? It is very easy to sit in your apartment in Bern or The Hague and complain how the evil Americans are starting illegal wars. We are not happy about policing the world but this goes back to getting dragged into two world wars and not letting that happen again:rolleyes:

Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves:)

If we were as terrible as many in the Euro-left believe, we would have taken over Iraq oil and not paid them a cent for it...we didn't even get a discount on it:confused:

Splitter

10-23-2010, 09:34 PM

"Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves"

Well, maybe next time 'cause I paid $2.75 a gallon today and I don't understand why it has gone back up. I think that as long as we are accused of such things in any case we should at some point prove them right :o.

Splitter

Theshark888

10-23-2010, 09:36 PM

Theshark888

10-23-2010, 09:38 PM

K_Freddie

10-23-2010, 09:50 PM

We should have taken over Iraqi oil until the cost of the war was paid. That's my opinion:)
Do you know Saudi paid for that invasion..aka.. the Bin Ladens :rolleyes:

K_Freddie

10-23-2010, 09:54 PM

Someday we will not be there to get your chestnuts out of the fire:-P
Not a moment to soon..........................................as we wave you goodbye... tralala

K_Freddie

10-23-2010, 10:10 PM

Shark.. I really think you must be some really naive/indoctrinated person, or just a troll.
You should consult a variety of different sources of information, especially if these sources are a conflict of interest. ;)

Sven

10-23-2010, 10:49 PM

Of course. Should we have just let our Western-way of civilization collapse or held hostage by some third world despot gaining control of over half the oil reserves in the world?? It is very easy to sit in your apartment in Bern or The Hague and complain how the evil Americans are starting illegal wars. We are not happy about policing the world but this goes back to getting dragged into two world wars and not letting that happen again:rolleyes:

Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves:)

If we were as terrible as many in the Euro-left believe, we would have taken over Iraq oil and not paid them a cent for it...we didn't even get a discount on it:confused:

Ah yes of course, the american way to roll, well.. roll .. more like 'shoot'. Anyway, as long as I can see South Park for my weekly laugh all is just fine.

I have to agree though, the Iraq war was not wrong, the US covered it up a bit, what at some point is understandable.

Triggaaar

10-23-2010, 11:27 PM

Sure we could be attacked but in a conventional war with another major power, we would not lose.Indeed, and likewise if you attacked another major power in the same way, you would not win. Fortunately neither situation is about to happen, I am simply stating that your earlier statement ("NO single entity...no two countries even....are going to beat us militarily") was not correct without specific context.

As to the continual "war for oil" comments by some (not you necessarily)....let's face it, if we went to war to prevent an atrocity we would be accused of colonialism. If we went to war to kill an enemy before he attacked us, we would be accused of aggression. If we went to war to protect the world's oil supply we would be accused of profiteering. If we went to war to protect an ally we would be accused of interventionism.Well you weren't generally criticised for going to war with Iraq in '91, and the US don't face the criticism for the last war with Iraq alone. But it is hardly surprisng (or undesirable) that going to war attracts criticism.

It is very easy to sit in your apartment in Bern or The Hague and complain how the evil Americans are starting illegal wars.Who here is doing that?

We are not happy about policing the world but this goes back to getting dragged into two world wars and not letting that happen again:rolleyes:What? The US joined the second world war because it was attacked. No allied country wanted to be involved, and some joined without the threat of attack.

Iraq was not some "innocent" country that the USA invaded to take over their oil reserves:)Has anyone here said that Iraq were innocent?

It is about time that the European Union started to do some heavy lifting and protect themselves and their interests militarily. When the oilfields in the Middle East are lost, the Euros will be in much worse shape than North America. Stop knocking your Ally and start worrying about the real threats to European civilization.Who are you talking to? I'm British and I am aware who the threats to civilisation are and are not. I share the same opinions on human rights as most western civilisations. I know that the British were lied to in order to progress with the last gulf war, and I do not knock the US any more than I do the British, and I'm not even close to a Euro leftie. And as for heavy lifting, Britain (as EU example) has done far more than it should, given that it is a tiny mino.

The US do put themselves forward as world police, and like all other countries, the US do things that they shouldn't, and that are sometimes in the interest of their leaders, and not the people from their, or any other country. The US therefore gets a lot of criticism from around the world, mostly undeserved, but sometimes fair. I appreciate that this puts a lot of Americans on the defensive (it's natural to be defensive when criticised, particularly when a lot of the criticism is unjust), but don't assume that everyone that thinks one war was unjustified suddenly thinks that the US are evil and not an ally.

Splitter

10-24-2010, 12:36 AM

Who are you talking to? I'm British and I am aware who the threats to civilisation are and are not. I share the same opinions on human rights as most western civilisations. I know that the British were lied to in order to progress with the last gulf war, and I do not knock the US any more than I do the British, and I'm not even close to a Euro leftie. And as for heavy lifting, Britain (as EU example) has done far more than it should, given that it is a tiny mino.

The US do put themselves forward as world police, and like all other countries, the US do things that they shouldn't, and that are sometimes in the interest of their leaders, and not the people from their, or any other country. The US therefore gets a lot of criticism from around the world, mostly undeserved, but sometimes fair. I appreciate that this puts a lot of Americans on the defensive (it's natural to be defensive when criticised, particularly when a lot of the criticism is unjust), but don't assume that everyone that thinks one war was unjustified suddenly thinks that the US are evil and not an ally.

Just to set the record straight, a quote you attributed to me in your last post was a post from someone else that I quoted :).

Your last paragraph is pretty much spot on.

If you look around, there is a LOT of US bashing going on. When I say bashing, I am not talking about questioning foreign policy here and there, I am talking about "bigoted" comments painting the US intents as evil. We go to war for oil, we kill civilians will nilly, we pollute the world, we try to turn everyone into Christians, you name it. And when I say there is a lot of hatred in the western world for the US, you know there will be a bunch of people who read it and think, "the US brought it all on themselves". Some may even type that if they were openly honest.

The crud we endure on pretty much any forum (or the world stage for that matter) is no different than "bigoted", ignorant statements that could be made about any nationality. Yet, it seems ok to the bash the US even when such statements about other nationalities would not be tolerated.

It just gets old, as you said.

Funny thing is, a lot of the people who tend to espouse these close minded views preach tolerance for every other situation lol.

Anyway, good thread even if it did wander far and wide. I'm out, back to airplanes.

Splitter

Triggaaar

10-24-2010, 12:58 AM

Just to set the record straight, a quote you attributed to me in your last post was a post from someone else that I quoted :).Fixed.

If you look around, there is a LOT of US bashing going on...
And when I say there is a lot of hatred in the western world for the US, you know there will be a bunch of people who read it and think, "the US brought it all on themselves". Some may even type that if they were openly honest.

The crud we endure on pretty much any forum (or the world stage for that matter) is no different than "bigoted", ignorant statements that could be made about any nationality. Yet, it seems ok to the bash the US even when such statements about other nationalities would not be tolerated.I think it's a viscious circle (lots of generalisations to follow, all IMO only of course). The US are unfairly criticised so much that many Americans are permanatly on the defensive, and don't readily accept the bits of criticism that are justified. Not accepting fair criticism makes on-lookers feel that Americans are arrogant and believe they are better than everyone, and have a given right to police the world etc.

Most Europeans that criticise the US are aware that generally what the US stands for is good. For example, in the World Cup in 1998, the US palyed Iran, and our pubs were packed with people (including me) supporting Iran. That's because it's funny, and we like supporting the underdog. But don't mis-interpret that into thinking we agree with Iran's values more than the US's.

Madfish

10-24-2010, 01:49 AM

Question: What does the Iraq war in common with WWII reconaissance pilots?

And regarding the Iraq war. Like any war, wars are ALWAYS unjust for the receiving party. A soldier has to know that he risks his life. It's not that president Bush came with a gun and forced people to join the Army and fight for him.
However, the civillians that got killed could not decide. The rapes, the abuses, chemical weapons, uranium enriched ammunition, etc.
I'd say the population of Iraq took a pounding. Before the war, during the war and now during the "cleanup" phase as well.

So the only real answer is: The war has nothing to do with rconaissance pilots. It's completely off topic.
And the second answer is probably: only time will tell if the Iraq war was "just" or just a slaughter.

No one, aside from time, can tell if good comes out of a war or not. And please keep in mind, humans are NOT the only lifeforms on this planet. Even if the "good" side wins and continues to literally destory the whole planet nothing is won by that.

ATAG_Dutch

10-24-2010, 01:02 PM

I believe that Hitler would have been overthrown at some point. There was no need for the Allies to advance all the way to Berlin...once the Rhine was encircled, Germany would have collapsed. The Siegfried Line was not all that it was cracked up to be.

Well, he wasn't.
Germany would not have allowed the encirclement of the Rhineland, and intelligence regarding the Siegfried line is available now, whereas we don't know what level of intelligence information the allies had then.

We may as well debate whether if Gavrilo Princip had been unsuccessful in assassinating Franz Ferdinand, there would have been no First War, no Treaty of Versailles, no rise of Hitler to power and thus no Second War.

What happened, happened. Endless debate of 'what if's' ain't gonna change much.
If you consider it Britain and France's faults that things escalated to the level they did, carry on, but I still think this is far too simplistic a perspective.

Anyway, back to America......

Theshark888

10-24-2010, 05:47 PM

Anyway, back to America......

Good conversation guys...sometimes it's good to "mix it up" and defend the homeland a little:grin:

The "evil" USA bit does get old after a while, but it is to be expected on a mixed US/Euro forum such as this and all over the internet. Don't be shocked if an American stands up once in a while and acts "arrogant." I guess it is so ingrained in some Euros minds that they don't even realize that they are bashing the US and it does put us in a constant defensive mode as Triggaar said:-P

That's all for me, can't wait for SOW to be released:)

Triggaaar

10-24-2010, 06:54 PM

The "evil" USA bit does get old after a while, but it is to be expected on a mixed US/Euro forum such as this and all over the internet...
I guess it is so ingrained in some Euros minds that they don't even realize that they are bashing the USCome on, has someone in this thread made any suggestion that the US are evil? Could you quote where someone is bashing the US? (I'm not saying they haven't I just haven't seen it, and I don't think I have, so please quote where it's happened)

Splitter

10-24-2010, 07:33 PM

Come on, has someone in this thread made any suggestion that the US are evil? Could you quote where someone is bashing the US? (I'm not saying they haven't I just haven't seen it, and I don't think I have, so please quote where it's happened)

Trig, I am not going to call out any individual and I specifically wrote my post (not the one you quoted but mine was similar) in an effort not to offend any individual.

My guess is that if you did a search on this board on "oil", "US", "Iran", "Iraq", "Israel", and some other associated terms, you would see what some have said. Sometimes the comments are direct, sometimes code words are used.

Hey, it's ok though. I understand a lot of the criticism and some of it I agree with (dangling participle anyone?). What I never understand is blind prejudice. I'm happy to carry on any foreign policy discussions or simple exchanges of ideas via PM or elsewhere. While this discussion has been good AND civil, unfortunately this thread got horribly derailed and as a participant, I apologize to the OP.

For the record, I love talking to people from elsewhere in the world. We generally have a lot of totally different experiences and perspectives and I usually find such discussions educational and interesting.

Splitter

Triggaaar

10-24-2010, 08:24 PM

Trig, I am not going to call out any individualI wasn't asking you :) I was asking the shark. I partly wanted to check he didn't think I was suggesting the US are evil.

My guess is that if you did a search on this board on "oil", "US", "Iran", "Iraq", "Israel", and some other associated terms, you would see what some have said.I'm only referring to this thread. Theshark says that the "evil" USA bit does get old after a while, but it is to be expected on a mixed US/Euro forum. I don't think it is to be expected that Europeans say the US are evil, I think the statement suggests that any criticism of foreign policy can be met with a 'ok, whatever you Euro leftie'.

I'm happy to carry on any foreign policy discussions or simple exchanges of ideas via PM or elsewhere. While this discussion has been good AND civil, unfortunately this thread got horribly derailed and as a participant, I apologize to the OP.Guilty :oops: